This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, you deleted the "DJ Klypso" page I created, but it seemed pretty well cited and he's pretty notable in the music industry. Can you give some insight as to what else would be needed to get his page back live again and up? He's working on numerous projects for television and film as well. I'm not sure if I need to start over but I can if you suggest. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazer921 ( talk • contribs) 01:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi MelanieN! I wanted to check in on this to see if it would be eligible to put back to live status with the edits and citations. I do know he's also working on more projects this year which will yield further content and sourcing. Thank you again!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazer921 ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, one of the Polish websites reports that after being sworn father Ivanka president that will take place on 20 January 2017, the current wife of her father was to be the first lady of the United States, but because of the situation in the family, Ivanka Trump will take over temporarily the role of hostess of the White home.
Are you in writing about this website? I greet the Polish and a Happy New Year :) TharonXX ( talk) 19:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC).
I see you made comments on ANI about Jennepicfoundation.
This reminds me of the article, Kim Carson, heavily edited by users Kimcarson and Sheri21st (Sheri is Kim Carson's other name). Is Kim Carson even notable?
Opinion from you sought. Thank you. Usernamen1 ( talk) 04:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!
In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
MelanieN, you are no beginner, so I am cutting to the chase and giving you the old-fashioned trout, straight up.
Methinks the reason that our mutual acquaintance, the ostentatious aficionado of title-case and overlinking, Drbogdan, who has been on wikipedia for eleven years and counting, was giving you the definition of WP:N, was perhaps to hint that elsewhere in the vast mass of WP:PAG there is a bit called WP:NOTEWORTHY which directly contradicts what you were saying. Whether some factoid is noteworthy -- aka fit to be mentioned in mainspace somewhere -- is defined by whether that factoid was found in a reliable source, not defined by whether individual wikipedians believe it to be true, or think it is encyclopedic, or whatever the case might be. (Topics can be unencyclopedic, but content of articles about encyclopedic-topic ought to neutrally mirror the sources.)
Notability does not determine article content, only sourcing does, and although consensus can cause tagging of unsourced material, and then deletion of unsourced material, and then deletion in of material that is sourced to unreliable or non-independent entities, that is not the case here. The stuff about Trump's film-faves and politician-prefs, is very well-sourced (at least some of it). So the question really *is* about WP:DUE, and thus *is* about whether we ought to keep it in the BLP-article, or move it to a subsidiary-article where the (well-sourced) material would be more appropriately organized/presented. There are extremely rare cases where even reliably-sourced neutrally-summarized material that meets all the usual policies, is still in fact deleted, but those should only be IAR scenarios and similar.
As a heuristic rule of thumb, any time you have wikipedians trying to argue for deleting well-sourced material -- as opposed to MOVING that well-sourced material to a more appropriate place on wikipedia -- then something is severely wrong. Having seen your editing history for some time, I am under no misapprehension that you personally are pushing a POV, or trying to cherrypick sources, or otherwise doing something naughty via deletion of well-sourced material. But I have seen exactly that, in the past, with other wikipedians that were quite obviously trying to slant what mainspace said, by deleting reliably-sourced material because it did not agree with the POV they wanted mainspace to push onto the readership. Again, I don't think that is happening here: you are legitimately aghast that fave-film 'in pop culture' trivia, might be polluting a series of articles about the presidency of a nuclear superpower. But let the sourcing be your guide -- how many RS do we have about candidates and their film-idiosyncrasies? By contrast, how many about their favorite ice-cream flavors? The former is a significant literature... not as wide as the opinion-polling literature base (but not as shallow either!), and not as deep as the books by historians (but usually broader than most deadtree-historians are willing and able). The latter, the ice-cream thing, is never anything but passing mention.
So, because it can be abused by people doing very naughty things indeed, in my wikibook™ the deletion of well-sourced material without a VERY solid policy-backed reason (to include IAR) is itself naughty. It should not be treated as normal/typical, or as a good/okay idea. When other people see you doing it, MelanieN, they will follow your lead. Edit summaries of "rv irrelevant" and also "rv trivia" and the old chestnut "rv non-encyclopedic" are sometimes necessary and sometimes on-point, just like "rvv" albeit not as often. That said, the sources aren't something we can be cavalier about; if they cover something that we personally consider crap, that does not make what the sources say crap, that just means wikipedia reflects what the sources say, and therefore for the sake of neutrality when it DOES really matter to the mission of building a neutral encyclopedia (e.g. sourcing about Trump's policy-positions on 'building the wall' and his explanations for how 'mexico will pay for it') it is utterly crucial methinks, that the groundwork has been properly laid in past discussions. If the sources fit, you must acquit.
I will also speak briefly, one last aside about what I presume Drbogdan intends, since I share that characteristic; constantly linking to wikipedia policy-pages, is intended to be a way of educating future visitors to the talkpage (or to the talkpage archives), some of whom will undoubtedly be actual beginners that have never heard of WP:BITE. So I pretty much habitually use bluelinks to policy-pages, not as a way of being insulting/sarcastic/whatever to the person I'm replying unto at that moment (they tend to be another long-time wikipedian with no need for the allcaps), but as a way to leave a trail of policy-backed-breadcrumbs for some lurker that is thinking about hitting edit, but has not yet dared to WP:BEBOLD. The man drives a Ferrari, and has a purple-squiggle-homepage-background-image, and was a forensic biochemist for the BATF. Please forgive him for his Xanadu-esque " Textual" Style -- methinks he's just trying to educate omnidirectionally. As for my own style, it also grates on some folks, but it is difficult to satisfy the eye of every beholder, both the observed ones and those which may currently be unobserved.
On that note, wishing you a happy & joyous new year, please indulge in some air-steamed or pan-fried or whatever you prefer seafood delicacy, and see you when you return from your vacation 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 09:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
To the Eradicator-in-Chief. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 18:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |
Thanks for the comment here. It probably should have been ignored completely from the start. SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Melanie, can you rev delete some IP edits on the Donald Trump talk page? I would have asked sooner but I just remembered you're an admin. SW3 5DL ( talk) 01:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC) here and [5] and here and here. SW3 5DL ( talk) 01:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Got 3 more from another article talk page: here and here and here. Thanks, Melanie. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Melanie, I noticed on two of the revdels on my contributions here that the edit summaries seem to indicate they were in the Lede/&Election section on Donald Trump, but the edits look intact on the DT talk page. The edits I'm asking about are at 23:20 3 January and 22:54 3 January. I don't think the IP was in that section. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 04:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I've added my co-nom below yours and the RfA is ready to go. If you have a moment , please transclude it - I have to go out. BTW: Happy New Year! Chris, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: Are you about? The IP is back. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
{ec} I'd list this fellow, (AndyTyner (talk) as the sock master as he's the fellow who got the ball rolling on the entire topic. And he also uses the quirkly ( in his signature as do the IP's using their mobiles. (AndyTyner (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)) Notice how he does the same in the signature as the IPs. This ( is not needed and nobody else does it on WP, do they? SW3 5DL ( talk) 23:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Aaaannnnddd... we have a winner! Turns out they are a long-term-abuse editor known as HarveyCarter. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter. Nice work nailing this guy, SW3 5DL! -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You might want to remove the comments here about his identifying signature quirk, in the chance he reads this page. Objective3000 ( talk) 12:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For MelanieN. You are hereby awarded this Admin's Barnstar for carrying out a yeoman's work on the speedy revdels as well as facilitating the sorting of the sock responsible for the mess. Well done. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
I worked on that for hours, was trying to contrubute something new with good information which is the goal of wikipeida.. it's my assumption you have no conenction to the subject matter AND DIDN'T TAKE MUCH TIME TO READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN.. I was trying to catch up and had 9 cited sources, and you swooped in and seem to have delted the work done and not justified why.. seems like the people who came in and played god instead of contributing OR DIALOGUING are lost in the details of wikipedia instead of the point, which is to share information.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YesI'msure ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: I am bothered by that comment. I feel you could have equally conveyed meaning by simply showing the diff and reminding of me what I'd said. I don't think a parental tone is necessary. It comes across as a dressing down, which I don't feel is warranted. SW3 5DL ( talk) 04:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@ MelanieN:, Also can you do a page protection on Ireland-United States relations? We've got another IP inserting the Canary Wharf bit again. SW3 5DL ( talk) 04:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure your revdel on Talk:Donald Trump erased everything as your last diff (redacation) is still visible. Objective3000 ( talk) 02:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi MelanieN, Apologies for the interruption. Would it be possible for you to assess if recent edits at 2016 United States election interference by Russia also require RD2? Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
One editor has told me that the rules preclude the removal of the five instances of potty humor by anyone but the respective posters. Do you agree? ― Mandruss ☎ 17:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Make that four, I'll remove my own. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. There's an editor who has created a mass of articles along the lines of 2003 in Croatian television. Not a single reference. Now, I've been marking them as reviewed, since we seem to have these types of articles, like 1990 in American television, and most of them are unsourced as they are list articles. But when I went to check on the editor's talk page, I noticed you had left this comment, almost 2 years ago. Since that time, the article has had 2 small edits to it. Should I simply continue to mark them as reviewed, and tagging them as unsourced, or take a different tack? Onel5969 TT me 22:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Ha! "[Melanie] is a Trump supporter, I think"! [7] You realize what an unintentional accolade that is? Better than a barnstar. You should put it on your userpage with floral wreaths round it. When people can't tell what politician or what ideology you're supporting, you're certainly doing something right. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC).
Yesterday, you reverted this edit to Donald Trump. I certainly understand your reasoning, and I'm not going to edit war over it, but I think a strong case could be made that the opinions of Trump's handpicked cabinet members, especially one that has been as controversial and outspoken as Sessions, is relevant to his political positions. He presumably chose his cabinet members to enact his own positions in their respective departments. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your work. As an administrator is it that you don't operate within the scope of U.S. politics? Do you consider yourself WP:involved in that topic. I often see you editing and using your administration tools within that topic? Govindaharihari ( talk) 21:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
by Towns Hill. Notified of DS here; previously blocked here; now created article Pashtun Atrocities against Kashmiris. Which is pretty fundamentally concerned with the subject, as well as being extremely POV. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi. 14:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
You've been heavily involved with Donald Trump-related stuff, so I thought I'd ask you this. Is this revdel worthy, or is it just a sick joke? Adam9007 ( talk) 19:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems that we must both be doing something right :/ GAB gab 02:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I saw as inappropriate and I cannot undo it. Am I doing something wrong? PackMecEng ( talk) 03:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
PROPOSED:
A 6-month moratorium on the infobox image. The current infobox image, File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg, will not be modified or replaced until at least 22 July 2017. If modfications to the image (e.g. cropping or touch-up) are desired for another project, it should be cloned to a new image for that purpose. At some point before that date, we may decide to extend the moratorium for another period of duration to be determined then.
During the moratorium period, new threads about the infobox photo should be collapsed immediately with a link to the consensuses list, preferably indicating the relevant item number, which will include a link to this consensus. If a thread receives replies before it can be collapsed, it should be collapsed anyway. Use {{ Cot}} and {{ Cob}}, not {{ Atop}} and {{ Abot}}.
― Mandruss ☎ 03:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I am here for my class on full references. I have been using REfill() and it seems to work ok, but I need to understand what you mean by full references. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 04:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to class. 0;-D If you are using ReFill it ought to do more for you. Here is what I am talking about: Your references look like this in the edit window <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawsuit-trump-businesses-violate-constitution/2017/01/23/87c0df26-e174-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html|title=Lawsuit: Trump business ties violate Constitution|publisher=}}</ref> and they look like this in the reference list: [1]
This only gives you the title of the article and a link; the reader has to click the link to know any reference details, like where it was published and when. A full reference would also show, at a minimum, the publication and the date. It can also show the authors. Like this: <ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawsuit-trump-businesses-violate-constitution/2017/01/23/87c0df26-e174-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html|title=Lawsuit: Trump business ties violate Constitution|last=Condon|first=Bernard|date=January 23, 2017|work=Washington Post|accessdate=24 January 2017}}</ref> which comes out looking like this. [1]
This fomat allows a person to see what the publication is, and the date of publication. Those are key indicators that people want to see, to determine whether the publication is an Independent Reliable Source and when it was published. Those in turn are things people will use to decide if the subject has sufficient coverage to deserve an article.
You might want to experiment with ReFill (I'm not familiar with it) and see if it will give you ways to enter the rest of the information. If not, come back for lesson 2 and I'll show you what I use. It's a tool right here in the edit window, but it isn't automated; you have to enter the information into the fields manually, i.e., copy-paste. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, it's really quite easy and convenient. When you are in the edit window, there is a row of buttons along the top. One of them is "cite". Click that and it gives you a choice of types of source: web, news, journal, etc. Most of what you will be posting falls under the category of news. Click that and it gives you a form to fill out: url, title, author, date of publication, etc. Fill in manually, or copy-paste. When you have it filled out, put your cursor at the place in the text where you want the reference to go, and click "add citation." That's important! If you don't click "add citation" before previewing or saving, the information will be lost and you will have to do it over. Try it! Choose a newspaper article - here is one you can practice on. Put it in another window so you can go back and forth to copy-paste. Write something here and see if you can cite the article as a reference. -- MelanieN ( talk) 05:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
3-days is very much appreciated. Thank you so much for granting our request. Whooossshhhh ( talk) 22:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hi, I want to edit the subtitle that comes up for an article when I type its name in the searchbar of the main www.wikipedia.org page. The current one is NPOV. How do I do that? NPalgan2 ( talk) 03:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, you deleted the "DJ Klypso" page I created, but it seemed pretty well cited and he's pretty notable in the music industry. Can you give some insight as to what else would be needed to get his page back live again and up? He's working on numerous projects for television and film as well. I'm not sure if I need to start over but I can if you suggest. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazer921 ( talk • contribs) 01:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi MelanieN! I wanted to check in on this to see if it would be eligible to put back to live status with the edits and citations. I do know he's also working on more projects this year which will yield further content and sourcing. Thank you again!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazer921 ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, one of the Polish websites reports that after being sworn father Ivanka president that will take place on 20 January 2017, the current wife of her father was to be the first lady of the United States, but because of the situation in the family, Ivanka Trump will take over temporarily the role of hostess of the White home.
Are you in writing about this website? I greet the Polish and a Happy New Year :) TharonXX ( talk) 19:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC).
I see you made comments on ANI about Jennepicfoundation.
This reminds me of the article, Kim Carson, heavily edited by users Kimcarson and Sheri21st (Sheri is Kim Carson's other name). Is Kim Carson even notable?
Opinion from you sought. Thank you. Usernamen1 ( talk) 04:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!
In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
MelanieN, you are no beginner, so I am cutting to the chase and giving you the old-fashioned trout, straight up.
Methinks the reason that our mutual acquaintance, the ostentatious aficionado of title-case and overlinking, Drbogdan, who has been on wikipedia for eleven years and counting, was giving you the definition of WP:N, was perhaps to hint that elsewhere in the vast mass of WP:PAG there is a bit called WP:NOTEWORTHY which directly contradicts what you were saying. Whether some factoid is noteworthy -- aka fit to be mentioned in mainspace somewhere -- is defined by whether that factoid was found in a reliable source, not defined by whether individual wikipedians believe it to be true, or think it is encyclopedic, or whatever the case might be. (Topics can be unencyclopedic, but content of articles about encyclopedic-topic ought to neutrally mirror the sources.)
Notability does not determine article content, only sourcing does, and although consensus can cause tagging of unsourced material, and then deletion of unsourced material, and then deletion in of material that is sourced to unreliable or non-independent entities, that is not the case here. The stuff about Trump's film-faves and politician-prefs, is very well-sourced (at least some of it). So the question really *is* about WP:DUE, and thus *is* about whether we ought to keep it in the BLP-article, or move it to a subsidiary-article where the (well-sourced) material would be more appropriately organized/presented. There are extremely rare cases where even reliably-sourced neutrally-summarized material that meets all the usual policies, is still in fact deleted, but those should only be IAR scenarios and similar.
As a heuristic rule of thumb, any time you have wikipedians trying to argue for deleting well-sourced material -- as opposed to MOVING that well-sourced material to a more appropriate place on wikipedia -- then something is severely wrong. Having seen your editing history for some time, I am under no misapprehension that you personally are pushing a POV, or trying to cherrypick sources, or otherwise doing something naughty via deletion of well-sourced material. But I have seen exactly that, in the past, with other wikipedians that were quite obviously trying to slant what mainspace said, by deleting reliably-sourced material because it did not agree with the POV they wanted mainspace to push onto the readership. Again, I don't think that is happening here: you are legitimately aghast that fave-film 'in pop culture' trivia, might be polluting a series of articles about the presidency of a nuclear superpower. But let the sourcing be your guide -- how many RS do we have about candidates and their film-idiosyncrasies? By contrast, how many about their favorite ice-cream flavors? The former is a significant literature... not as wide as the opinion-polling literature base (but not as shallow either!), and not as deep as the books by historians (but usually broader than most deadtree-historians are willing and able). The latter, the ice-cream thing, is never anything but passing mention.
So, because it can be abused by people doing very naughty things indeed, in my wikibook™ the deletion of well-sourced material without a VERY solid policy-backed reason (to include IAR) is itself naughty. It should not be treated as normal/typical, or as a good/okay idea. When other people see you doing it, MelanieN, they will follow your lead. Edit summaries of "rv irrelevant" and also "rv trivia" and the old chestnut "rv non-encyclopedic" are sometimes necessary and sometimes on-point, just like "rvv" albeit not as often. That said, the sources aren't something we can be cavalier about; if they cover something that we personally consider crap, that does not make what the sources say crap, that just means wikipedia reflects what the sources say, and therefore for the sake of neutrality when it DOES really matter to the mission of building a neutral encyclopedia (e.g. sourcing about Trump's policy-positions on 'building the wall' and his explanations for how 'mexico will pay for it') it is utterly crucial methinks, that the groundwork has been properly laid in past discussions. If the sources fit, you must acquit.
I will also speak briefly, one last aside about what I presume Drbogdan intends, since I share that characteristic; constantly linking to wikipedia policy-pages, is intended to be a way of educating future visitors to the talkpage (or to the talkpage archives), some of whom will undoubtedly be actual beginners that have never heard of WP:BITE. So I pretty much habitually use bluelinks to policy-pages, not as a way of being insulting/sarcastic/whatever to the person I'm replying unto at that moment (they tend to be another long-time wikipedian with no need for the allcaps), but as a way to leave a trail of policy-backed-breadcrumbs for some lurker that is thinking about hitting edit, but has not yet dared to WP:BEBOLD. The man drives a Ferrari, and has a purple-squiggle-homepage-background-image, and was a forensic biochemist for the BATF. Please forgive him for his Xanadu-esque " Textual" Style -- methinks he's just trying to educate omnidirectionally. As for my own style, it also grates on some folks, but it is difficult to satisfy the eye of every beholder, both the observed ones and those which may currently be unobserved.
On that note, wishing you a happy & joyous new year, please indulge in some air-steamed or pan-fried or whatever you prefer seafood delicacy, and see you when you return from your vacation 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 09:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
To the Eradicator-in-Chief. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 18:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |
Thanks for the comment here. It probably should have been ignored completely from the start. SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Melanie, can you rev delete some IP edits on the Donald Trump talk page? I would have asked sooner but I just remembered you're an admin. SW3 5DL ( talk) 01:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC) here and [5] and here and here. SW3 5DL ( talk) 01:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Got 3 more from another article talk page: here and here and here. Thanks, Melanie. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Melanie, I noticed on two of the revdels on my contributions here that the edit summaries seem to indicate they were in the Lede/&Election section on Donald Trump, but the edits look intact on the DT talk page. The edits I'm asking about are at 23:20 3 January and 22:54 3 January. I don't think the IP was in that section. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 04:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I've added my co-nom below yours and the RfA is ready to go. If you have a moment , please transclude it - I have to go out. BTW: Happy New Year! Chris, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: Are you about? The IP is back. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
{ec} I'd list this fellow, (AndyTyner (talk) as the sock master as he's the fellow who got the ball rolling on the entire topic. And he also uses the quirkly ( in his signature as do the IP's using their mobiles. (AndyTyner (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)) Notice how he does the same in the signature as the IPs. This ( is not needed and nobody else does it on WP, do they? SW3 5DL ( talk) 23:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Aaaannnnddd... we have a winner! Turns out they are a long-term-abuse editor known as HarveyCarter. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter. Nice work nailing this guy, SW3 5DL! -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You might want to remove the comments here about his identifying signature quirk, in the chance he reads this page. Objective3000 ( talk) 12:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For MelanieN. You are hereby awarded this Admin's Barnstar for carrying out a yeoman's work on the speedy revdels as well as facilitating the sorting of the sock responsible for the mess. Well done. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
I worked on that for hours, was trying to contrubute something new with good information which is the goal of wikipeida.. it's my assumption you have no conenction to the subject matter AND DIDN'T TAKE MUCH TIME TO READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN.. I was trying to catch up and had 9 cited sources, and you swooped in and seem to have delted the work done and not justified why.. seems like the people who came in and played god instead of contributing OR DIALOGUING are lost in the details of wikipedia instead of the point, which is to share information.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YesI'msure ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: I am bothered by that comment. I feel you could have equally conveyed meaning by simply showing the diff and reminding of me what I'd said. I don't think a parental tone is necessary. It comes across as a dressing down, which I don't feel is warranted. SW3 5DL ( talk) 04:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@ MelanieN:, Also can you do a page protection on Ireland-United States relations? We've got another IP inserting the Canary Wharf bit again. SW3 5DL ( talk) 04:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure your revdel on Talk:Donald Trump erased everything as your last diff (redacation) is still visible. Objective3000 ( talk) 02:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi MelanieN, Apologies for the interruption. Would it be possible for you to assess if recent edits at 2016 United States election interference by Russia also require RD2? Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
One editor has told me that the rules preclude the removal of the five instances of potty humor by anyone but the respective posters. Do you agree? ― Mandruss ☎ 17:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Make that four, I'll remove my own. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. There's an editor who has created a mass of articles along the lines of 2003 in Croatian television. Not a single reference. Now, I've been marking them as reviewed, since we seem to have these types of articles, like 1990 in American television, and most of them are unsourced as they are list articles. But when I went to check on the editor's talk page, I noticed you had left this comment, almost 2 years ago. Since that time, the article has had 2 small edits to it. Should I simply continue to mark them as reviewed, and tagging them as unsourced, or take a different tack? Onel5969 TT me 22:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Ha! "[Melanie] is a Trump supporter, I think"! [7] You realize what an unintentional accolade that is? Better than a barnstar. You should put it on your userpage with floral wreaths round it. When people can't tell what politician or what ideology you're supporting, you're certainly doing something right. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC).
Yesterday, you reverted this edit to Donald Trump. I certainly understand your reasoning, and I'm not going to edit war over it, but I think a strong case could be made that the opinions of Trump's handpicked cabinet members, especially one that has been as controversial and outspoken as Sessions, is relevant to his political positions. He presumably chose his cabinet members to enact his own positions in their respective departments. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your work. As an administrator is it that you don't operate within the scope of U.S. politics? Do you consider yourself WP:involved in that topic. I often see you editing and using your administration tools within that topic? Govindaharihari ( talk) 21:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
by Towns Hill. Notified of DS here; previously blocked here; now created article Pashtun Atrocities against Kashmiris. Which is pretty fundamentally concerned with the subject, as well as being extremely POV. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi. 14:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
You've been heavily involved with Donald Trump-related stuff, so I thought I'd ask you this. Is this revdel worthy, or is it just a sick joke? Adam9007 ( talk) 19:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems that we must both be doing something right :/ GAB gab 02:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I saw as inappropriate and I cannot undo it. Am I doing something wrong? PackMecEng ( talk) 03:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
PROPOSED:
A 6-month moratorium on the infobox image. The current infobox image, File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg, will not be modified or replaced until at least 22 July 2017. If modfications to the image (e.g. cropping or touch-up) are desired for another project, it should be cloned to a new image for that purpose. At some point before that date, we may decide to extend the moratorium for another period of duration to be determined then.
During the moratorium period, new threads about the infobox photo should be collapsed immediately with a link to the consensuses list, preferably indicating the relevant item number, which will include a link to this consensus. If a thread receives replies before it can be collapsed, it should be collapsed anyway. Use {{ Cot}} and {{ Cob}}, not {{ Atop}} and {{ Abot}}.
― Mandruss ☎ 03:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I am here for my class on full references. I have been using REfill() and it seems to work ok, but I need to understand what you mean by full references. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 04:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to class. 0;-D If you are using ReFill it ought to do more for you. Here is what I am talking about: Your references look like this in the edit window <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawsuit-trump-businesses-violate-constitution/2017/01/23/87c0df26-e174-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html|title=Lawsuit: Trump business ties violate Constitution|publisher=}}</ref> and they look like this in the reference list: [1]
This only gives you the title of the article and a link; the reader has to click the link to know any reference details, like where it was published and when. A full reference would also show, at a minimum, the publication and the date. It can also show the authors. Like this: <ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawsuit-trump-businesses-violate-constitution/2017/01/23/87c0df26-e174-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html|title=Lawsuit: Trump business ties violate Constitution|last=Condon|first=Bernard|date=January 23, 2017|work=Washington Post|accessdate=24 January 2017}}</ref> which comes out looking like this. [1]
This fomat allows a person to see what the publication is, and the date of publication. Those are key indicators that people want to see, to determine whether the publication is an Independent Reliable Source and when it was published. Those in turn are things people will use to decide if the subject has sufficient coverage to deserve an article.
You might want to experiment with ReFill (I'm not familiar with it) and see if it will give you ways to enter the rest of the information. If not, come back for lesson 2 and I'll show you what I use. It's a tool right here in the edit window, but it isn't automated; you have to enter the information into the fields manually, i.e., copy-paste. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, it's really quite easy and convenient. When you are in the edit window, there is a row of buttons along the top. One of them is "cite". Click that and it gives you a choice of types of source: web, news, journal, etc. Most of what you will be posting falls under the category of news. Click that and it gives you a form to fill out: url, title, author, date of publication, etc. Fill in manually, or copy-paste. When you have it filled out, put your cursor at the place in the text where you want the reference to go, and click "add citation." That's important! If you don't click "add citation" before previewing or saving, the information will be lost and you will have to do it over. Try it! Choose a newspaper article - here is one you can practice on. Put it in another window so you can go back and forth to copy-paste. Write something here and see if you can cite the article as a reference. -- MelanieN ( talk) 05:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
3-days is very much appreciated. Thank you so much for granting our request. Whooossshhhh ( talk) 22:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hi, I want to edit the subtitle that comes up for an article when I type its name in the searchbar of the main www.wikipedia.org page. The current one is NPOV. How do I do that? NPalgan2 ( talk) 03:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |