User talk:MelanieN

Archives
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Archives January 2010 to June 2012. July to December 2012. January to June 2013. July to December 2013. January 2014 to June 2014. July to December 2014. January 2015. February 2015. March 2015. April 2015. May 2015. June 2015. July 2015. August 2015. September 2015. October 2015. November 2015. December 2015. January 2016. February 2016. March 2016. April 2016. May 2016. June 2016. July 2016. August 2016. September 2016. October 2016. November 2016. December 2016. January 2017. February 2017. March 2017. April 2017. May 2017. June 2017. July 2017. August 2017. September 2017. October 2017. November 2017. December 2017. January 2018. February 2018. March 2018. April 2018. May 2018. June 2018. July 2018. August 2018. September 2018. October 2018. November 2018. December 2018. January 2019. February 2019. March 2019. April 2019. May 2019. June 2019. July 2019. August 2019. September 2019. October 2019. November 2019. December 2019. January 2020. February 2020. March 2020. April 2020. May 2020. June 2020. July 2020. August 2020. September 2020. October 2020. November 2020. December 2020. January 2021. February 2021. March 2021. April 2021. May 2021. June 2021. July 2021. August 2021. September 2021. October 2021. November 2021. December 2021. January 2022. February 2022. March 2022. April 2022. May 2022. June 2022. July 2022. August 2022. September 2022. October 2022. Historical stuff.

Lynn (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC) sends thanks to Melanie for your encouraging feedback to this Wiki semi-newbie regarding his scale to quantify the darkness of the night sky. And for all you do for Wikipedia.[reply]

Hello,

I am writing to you concerned about moderator Wes Sideman (whom I have linked to below). He seems to have an obsession with this television character “Chad Johnson” from the TV show “The Bachelorette” and his Wikipedia page. He continues to change the notoriety of Chad Johnson from his TV shows, to his arrest records attempting to defame him. Those charges were dropped and as you can see in the video below, his girlfriend admits no assault happened. Apparently Wes Sideman knows more than the two people actually involved in the incident. Wes Sideman also continues to remove any remotely good press about Chad from the Wikipedia page. For some reason Wes has been monitoring and harassing this Wikipedia page for over two years now. If you have time, I would ask or suggest that you look into doing something about this Wes Sideman moderator using an abuse of power on Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Admission of no assault - https://youtu .be/qyK8-_kaVt8

Examples of Wes Sideman’s edits - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1116808783

Wes Sideman’s page - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wes_sideman&action=view

Chad Johnson’s Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Johnson_(TV_personality) 193.192.116.74 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Oddly, I got one of these messages on my own Talk page. No idea why, as I don't recall any interaction with either the IP editor or the target of their ire, Wes sideman. See also this entry: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Chad_Johnson_(TV_personality). A puzzle that I can only resolve by referring the IP to ANI. Cheers! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like you,Geoff, I have had no interaction with this article and have no idea why they chose me (and you, and Ed Johnson) to post his identical complaint. And they have now posted it on the BLP notice board. I see no reason to get involved with the situation myself. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN, hoping you are well. Can you pls do something about the talk page of Socrates, someone is messing around, apparently. [1] Cinadon36 11:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Cinadon36, and thanks for the note. I know this kind of thing is annoying, but it is not anywhere near the level needed to add protection to a talk page. There were just two problem edits this week, and before that nothing since October. This kind of thing can be handled by normal watchlisting. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks Mel! Cheers Cinadon36 05:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ―Buster7 ☎ 04:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
Have a great Christmas, and may 2023 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I raised this issue at ANI but no admins have responded. User:GigachadGigachad has made a slew of unsourced and misrepresented edits and removed content without explaining why, for which they were blocked in the past, and yet they are at this point ignoring the many warnings that users have posted on their talk page. This seems like a clear WP:CIR issue, so can you take action? Thanks. (Also sorry for posting this, deleting, and then reposting. Had some big formatting issues) Cpotisch (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just doing some editing for the first time in a while (someone was putting in spam links in article I was interested in) and so was catching up and looking back. I see I got a barnstar once from someone who is now an admin, though it has been a long time so you might not remember giving it to me. I need to find that article I was quoted in. Anyways, glad to see you are doing well here. I think I might have caught the editing bug again, so I might do some more editing now again. XinJeisan (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, XinJeisan! Yes, that was me. That was a long time ago, back in 2011. I don't remember what was the occasion for you being quoted in the press (and I stupidly didn't provide a link - I was kind of a newbie myself back then). But I'm sure you deserved it. Glad to see you are back! -- MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi MelanieN! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN. I work for Pure Storage and have a disclosed COI. The page seems to have a confusing history. At times editors have said to edit the page, to not edit the page, that the company already edited the page inappropriately (many years ago), and there’s a lot of very vague comments/feedback saying the page needs improvement.

I disclosed a COI and requested some edits here to clarify the Purity OS is used on most (but not all) products, to update the list of product families, etc. A couple editors responded, but it is not very clear what next steps are. Your help would be much appreciated if you could clear the fog, even if it’s just to tell me my requested edits are bad and why. ZacBond (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that the pages Kiefer Sutherland and Charlize Theron are both indefinitely semi-protected but are both missing the padlock icon at the top right of the page, can you fix this for both pages? Thanks. Voabo (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Voabo. Looks like alert editor LilianaUwU has already fixed it. Thanks, Liliana! -- MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for taking care of the vandalism on the page. However, I would consider the 1 month protection too long. Right now, the page is being worked on a lot as it got newly released and a lot of people come around. Could you reduce the protection again to one level lower than now? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vestigium Leonis, and thanks for the note. I see the problem: you yourself are not Extended Confirmed, and so the new protection is keeping you from editing. I sympathize, because you were not the one causing the problems. But there was a real problem with vandalism edits from auto-confirmed editors (or one editor under multiple names; several of the names have been blocked but there are always more in this kind of case). The vandalism was such that it is covered by the rules of WP:GENSEX. Let's do this: After a week I will lower it to semi-protection and we will see what happens. If things stay calm, fine. If the same problem comes back, I will have to restore the extended-confirmed protection, possibly for a longer time. Post here on my talk page on Sunday, Feb. 19 to remind me. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just here for the reminder. Thanks (Depending on timezones it might not be Sunday for you already though). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; it's still Saturday here. But I will reduce the protection level and let's see what happens. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I understand you declined the RfPP request for Gqeberha because most of the disruptive edits were by a single auto-confirmed editor, Dgv102. Of course this is completely reasonable.

You might want to take another look at their edits though as they have continued to remove/change referenced content about South African city naming across several articles. Also another IP (196.41.10.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) continues to make similar edits at Gqeberha and other South African city articles.

Thanks! — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that their only response continues to be If you censor me I will report you to the USA House of Representative media committee, so they're WP:NOTHERE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked them for 48 hours. I'll keep an eye on that IP; my hunch is it is the same person, editing without logging in. I will look forward to being reported to the USA House of Representative media committee, or possibly to the United States, House of Representatives Committee on Social media. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN. I've noticed that you reduced from ECP to semi-protection on Hogwarts Legacy with expiration time left in place. However, you may have not noticed that another admin placed indefinite semi-protection under CT procedures per WP:GENSEX? See the log here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=140949542.

In my opinion, I think you should revert back to indefinite as other admins cannot modify his restriction under CT procedures for one year without his affirmative consent, community consensus, or arbcom. Stylez995 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. I missed that. I will restore the semi-protection to indefinite. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your change, but it seems like protection of ScotRail after three bad edits in 10 days seems like overkill. I wouldn't say we are struggling to say on top of the article in any way. Just my US$0.02. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comment, 10mmsocket. That's why I gave it Pending Change protection instead of semi-protection. PC is exactly designed for the kind of article that gets problem edits, not frequently enough for semi-protection, but recurrent over a period of months or longer. It also has the advantage that when there are edits from IPs that are constructive, they can be accepted and integrated into the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I never saw it that way. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melanie - rather than further mucking up the RfC talk, I wanted to ask you about USPLACE here for a minute. For years, I was essentially neutral on this. I see the pros of keeping the USPLACE status quo - it's a bright line rule, and as you note, it is at least rooted in one clearly reliable source. But after seeing the issue come up over and over and over, either as a full RfC, or on individual city article RMs (and I think your private list is missing a number of those discussions, just fyi), I've come around to thinking that the only way to truly retire this as an issue is to do one simple thing: anywhere - but only where - a city name is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to a city article, swap City, State for City. That's it. No other discussion needed. This would mean zero "constant battles" because the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has already been decided. If someone wants to battle about Phoenix or Nashville or Raleigh or Charlotte, they are already free to do that today - regardless of USPLACE. Swapping primaryredirects would have no impact on Springfield or Greenville or anywhere else - no battles.

The main problem with USPLACE - the reason challenging it will never die - is because it is so arbitrary. It's a fundamentally flawed compromise. There have been countless other Wiki battles that did resolve - WP:COMMA, WP:ENDASH, New York, etc. This one keeps going because in standard American usage, there is no reason to allow Seattle but not Nashville, or to allow Honolulu but not Beverly Hills.

I know you've been a staunch supporter of USPLACE for a long time. I also know you are a dedicated, smart, pragmatic editor. This just feels to me like the pragmatic way out of all this! Appreciate you taking the time here, and interested in your thoughts. Dohn joe (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful note, Dohn joe. (And how are you? Long time no see.) I do strongly feel that US cities should have the state appended to their name, for reasons I have spelled out elsewhere, so I do not agree with dropping the state. And I am not moved by the argument that the US naming convention has to be identical to every other country's; uniqueness for individual country standards or formats is accepted at Wikipedia. But I do see where you are coming from about the AP exceptions. I would be perfectly OK with eliminating the AP rule and making all of our cities have the state added. This would not really create any disruption, because someone searching for "Chicago" would automatically end up at "Chicago, Illinois" without even noticing they have been redirected. Whereas removing the state from all cities that are unique would, as I have argued in the past, have cities like "Hawaiian Gardens, California" or "Sleepy Eye, Minnesota" demanding their states back. Continuing the Minnesota examples, a city name like "Elko New Market" or "Shoreview" or "Sauk Centre" or "Blue Earth" or "Olivia" or "St. Bonifacius" ... well, you get the idea. The name conveys no information without the state. I should probably make clearer at the discussion that I am willing to abandon the AP and list the state at all city articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Melanie, doing well - hope you are too! U.S. placenames are such an odd situation. I looked at it a long time ago, and somewhere around 80 percent of U.S. placenames will require disambiguation no matter what the convention is. So having the "default" be City would mean only 20 percent of U.S. places would really be at City. Which is a good WP:CONSISTENCY argument to just have everything at City, State. But then it's not consistent with normal WP practice, which is to have everything at Name unless there are two topics called "Name", in which case you go to the primarytopic discussion. If Hawaiian Gardens was a town in New Zealand, it would be at Hawaiian Gardens. Which is why I disagree with adding the state to "give context" or "convey information" - that's not how WP usually titles things. All that said, universal City, State is my second-best situation. I still think that people would come along trying to get things in line with regular WP usage, but it's a much better outcome than what we have now. I'll go say that over at the RfC. Dohn joe (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were the deleting admin on this article. I was wondering if you could please userfy it for me. The issues included the nominator and one of the comments were sock puppets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Duncan_(2nd_nomination)

BlackAmerican (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, BlackAmerican. The article is now at User:BlackAmerican/Ron Duncan. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Omar (opera) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GRuban (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]

April songs

my story today

Thank you! It's also featured on project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I loved to see Marian Anderson and her story of protest against discrimination by singing on Easter Sunday 9 April 1939 on the Main page yesterday. Impressions of Easter here and music here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Gerda! I'm afraid I missed it, not having logged on to my computer all day yesterday. Was busy pretty much all day, first singing multiple Easter services and then getting together with family. Of course I am familiar with her singing at the Lincoln Memorial, but I didn't realize that was the day. Good to know. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it was very similar for me. Yes, I knew of the event, but had even commented out some images when there was a complaint about too many on her birthday. Only when I read the article again did I realize that the original event had also been Easter Sunday, which made extra meaningful. - I like the stats. - My multiple services were on four days in a row, as you probably saw, otherwise I'd have passed the news around on Sunday. In Germany, Monday was still Easter ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story today, Messiah (Handel), was my first dip into the FA ocean, thanks to great colleagues. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I stumbled across the Megyn Kelly page and noticed that it is indefinitely semi-protected but is missing the padlock icon at the top right of the page, can you fix this? Thanks. Kyle Idleman (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)  Done Galobtter (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Idleman: And how exactly did you "stumble" across the article and the problem?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because they did the vandalism? Hi MelanieN and tpws. This is a frequent trope for this LTA, FYI. Be sure to ping a CU. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for dealing with them, zzuuzz. How would I recognize an account as an LTA in the future? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably already familiar with vandalism such as this or this. I don't mean just the vandalism, but also the whole context.[2] US politicians are a particular favourite.[3][4] I would eye any protection request concerning any affected article with a high degree of suspicion. I mean regular users sometimes request protection, and that's fine, but very often there's a suspicious new user to be found. Their LTA page, linked from the block log, might have some extra info. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Joe Rogan page has been indefinitely semi-protected for a long time but the prior PC settings have not been reset. Can you please take care of this? Kyle Idleman (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done A long time is right. It's been indefinitely PC protected since 2014. The indefinite semi-protection was imposed in 2017 but the PC wasn't removed. Six years is a long time to have unnecessary PC protection on an article. You were apparently the first one to notice it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN (talk) I thought you might find this story and photos very informative: ^[1] Activist (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, Activist! As a San Diego resident myself, I am of course familiar with the issues this article raises. But after reading it and its excellent summary of the coastal situation in California, I think I will look into adding some of this information to articles like San Diego, San Diego County, Santa Cruz, and others. (BTW it's interesting that this excellent summary of California's coastal problems was published in an East Coast newspaper! Maybe that's why it says Black's Beach is "north of San Diego" when it is actually part of San Diego.) -- MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: this: Would a range block not work? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought. I saw the message, and yes, it might. But the IPs are changing so rapidly, to so many different accounts, I thought it would be simpler just to protect the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... thank you for clarifying... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MelanieN: I noticed you were one of the administrators who voted to keep the page Mark Chasan (founder & CEO of a publicly traded company) during its first AfD about 15 years ago. The page has been nominated for deletion again with no consensus reached and no voting activity since its relisting last week. For context, a quick edit history since the renomination shows promo has been removed and NPOV has been improved. I wanted to send you a note in case you had thoughts you wanted to share. Editchecker123 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Editchecker123, and thanks for your kind note. Actually I wasn't an admin in 2009; I was pretty much a newbie. Looking at the current article now, I note that it has lots of references but mostly from minor or little-known sources. I don't feel strongly enough one way or the other to comment at the AfD, except that the article should not be deleted. At worst it should be redirected to emusic. I guess I could go and say that. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MelanieN for your kind note to me as well. Since @Liz closed out the AfD, I thought it would be helpful to bring her into the follow-up to the conversation here. It’s been about a day with no activity on the merging front of the two articles, I thought I would volunteer to merge them (given I voted on the AfD, I had hoped someone else would do the merging, but it looks like not).

I wanted to ask your thoughts on the draftification piece given that’s not something I’ve seen done before as part of an AfD after a redirect (and not actually sure how to accomplish that outcome either). Since some of the main problems with the article originally were Promo/Advert/COI/SPA and initial writing by Guruvie, what if instead of draftifying the article, after merging relevant info, the article were rewritten from the ground-up in-place (i.e. it would start as a stub and as more reliable sources were found it would grow). Seems this would solve the main issues discussed and be a simpler outcome to accomplish?

I know this is not commonplace, but given the AfD closure wasn’t either and we had very weak consensus, I wanted to propose this to you as administrators with the offer that I’d be willing to take on that project as well. Editchecker123 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to do the merge later today - given that I argued for it so strongly. As for rewriting the article, yes, that is what we should do - but as a draft! Then we can do all we want with the draft, and nobody will look at it or evaluate it unless/until we are ready to request that it be changed from a draft to an article. While the work on the draft is going on, the only thing left of the article itself will be a redirect to the company. Give me the rest of today, I might be able to get it done. It's not unusual for it to take a while before a merge gets done. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. This is an interesting process to watch for the end of an AfD (more intriguing than the other AfDs I have watched over the years). Appreciate you explaining how it works and look forward to seeing this process of drafifcation here. Editchecker123 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's done. How it's done: first I transferred some of the information about how he founded eMusic and its company history to the eMusic article. Then I used the "move" function to move the entire, unchanged Mark Chasan article from article space to Draft:Mark Chasan. I moved the talk page too. In the draft article, I removed the notice about merging, and I also disabled all the categories, since we don't list drafts under any categories. Now the draft can be worked on freely, making as many changes as you want, and nobody will comment on it unless/until you request that it go back to being an article. BTW one of the things I held against the article was its lack of mainstream/major sources. I think if you look at the eMusic article you may find some mainstream sources that can be borrowed for the Chasan article. Thanks for involving me in this, it's kind of fun to carry out something unusual like that! It was clever of Liz to come up with that solution to the problem. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining how it was done, a lot simpler than I would have imagined! Agreed, if I have time, I’ll go back through and see if any of the sources from the eMusic article can be borrowed for the draft article. Out of curiosity, what’s the procedure for moving an article such as this one for example that was draftified back into article space once it has been cleaned up content and source-wise? Editchecker123 (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, that's so sweet! Thank you! -- MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN. I work for LastPass. I disclosed a COI, flagged about half of the page being focused on security breaches, and got a response from @Chumpih:. He seemed to agree but doesn’t want to keep editing without other editor(s) weighing in. I was hoping you might take a look and weigh in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LastPass#NPOV_Issues here]. Appreciate your time. AmyMarchiando (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the following indefinitely semi-protected pages need their prior PC settings reset:

• Adam Schiff
• Al Roker

Would you kindly take care of this for both pages? Thanks. Supernoodler (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the alert, Supernoodler. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the following indefinitely semi-protected pages need their prior PC settings reset:

• Mormons
• Sony
• Greenland
• Finland
• Fiji
• Black
• Iceland

Also, you may decide to take a look at Special:StablePages to see if there are anymore.

If you don't mind, would you take care of this for all the above pages? Thanks. Visualian (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert, Visualian. I think I got them all, but you might check and see if I missed any or messed any of them up. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Deen has the same issue, can you please fix? Visualian (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, the Denmark page has been indefinitely semi-protected for more than four years but still has not had its prior PC settings reset. Would you kindly please take care of this? Thanks. Joshuanite (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message was brought to you by a WP:HAND sock of User:CalebHughes. Favonian (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, Favonian. The user may be a banned sock, but the request was legitimate so I carried it out. This was a long-overdue correction of a problem. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, the following indefinitely semi-protected or extended confirmed pages have not had their prior PC settings reset for whatever reason:

• Salomon Morel
• List of Harry Potter characters
• Kellen Winslow II
• Adams Bridge
• Harshad Mehta
• Bryan Danielson
• The Miz
• Shonda Rhimes
• Jan T. Gross
• Strawberry
• Gavin McInnes
• Hurricane Matthew

Would you please fix this on each of the above pages? Thank you. Spaniolo (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN. I disclosed a conflict of interest and requested balancing a section on a political issue here. In a nutshell, the section cites one source alleging Lenovo was involved in a conspiracy to spy on US military operations for China, without balancing with other sources saying the allegations were bogus. I was hoping you might be willing to take a look at my request? Let me know. Best regards. StuartGill (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Template-salt in mainspace?. Thank you. You are recieving this semi-automated notification because you template-protected a page in mainspace. This is not an indicator of any wrongdoing on your part. Queen of AWB (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, MelanieN! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 15:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi MelanieN! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

LTNS, Melanie. Hope you're well. Numerous edit summaries by User 49.190.56.20 re the Noun article are downright uncivil at worst or rife with impertinence at best. The edits themselves aren't without merit; I'm concerned only about the summaries themselves. Would extended confirmed protection be in order for a few weeks to pause the grief? Here are the offending edit summaries:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noun&diff=prev&oldid=1201680444
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noun&diff=next&oldid=1201700838
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noun&diff=next&oldid=1201835442
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noun&diff=next&oldid=1202164251

Alternatively, a warning to the user or even a temporary ban from editing the Noun article might be a consideration. I wouldn't mind being additionally subject to such a ban if you think my sarcastically chastising edit summary merits a slap on my wrist. Cheers. Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well! I promptly replied at my user talkpage and agreed to be more kind if he would do the same and desist from his own rude and dismissive edits (quoted to him there, at my talkpage). Kent Dominic repeatedly refuses to read the explanations that I give for my extremely careful edits (and I do know about this topic, as should be clear from the content that I revise and add). Earlier I complimented Kent in an edit summary, which he appears not to have noticed; he certainly hasn't reciprocated, with any acknowledgement of my own efforts toward improvement of the article. In any case, it is now much improved, after the attention we have both given it. Thanks for listening, and best wishes to all. 49.190.56.203 (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether my edits are presumed to be dismissive isn't relevant. Whether my criticisms of an edit (while not casting asperisons on editor) might be construed to be rude isn't relevant. Whether I refuse to read edit summaries (while incidentally quoting them in part in my own summaries and supplying proofs as supplied above) is a red herring. Whether your edits are extremely careful isn't relevant. How much anyone knows about nouns isn't relevant. Your complimenting me in an earlier edit summary isn't relevant. Expecting a reciprocal compliment isn't relevant. Adhering to the Wikipedia guidelines for edit summaries, however, is the salient issue in this thread. The sufficiency of the edits themselves isn't an issue that a sysop properly decides when considering the basis of a complaint such as the one I lodged here. Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, the same user now seems to think asserting a belief about what an "editor still hasn't grasped" and a gender-based proclamation re "what he himself (sic) wikilinked" is proper verbiage for an edit summary. Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:02, 2 February 2024

[Answering unsigned, though I presume it's Kent Dominic:] O, sorry about that. If you prefer "they themself" I'll do it that way in future. Kent is normally a male name, and I found no pronoun guidance at your userpage. I stand by that "editor still hasn't grasped" remark, because it's plainly justified. I note that you have more offensive wording in your own subsequent summary text (see recent summaries). I have requested at the talkpage for Noun that you drop the stick, after again complimenting you on a good edit. Best wishes to all! ☺ 49.190.56.203 (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The unsigned edit is remedied.
• No need to apologize to me for the presumption. Can't say the same on behalf of anyone else who's the target of a conclusory characterization.
• For the record, Kent Dominic is a logon name that represents a singular user. Accordingly, I emphatically do not appreciate being the object of a singular they reference. However, since they, them, their (etc.) are third-person pronouns, I make no demands on how others pronominally refer to me in such contexts. While I admit no condescension toward others who use plural pronouns for an individual person or thing, I'm always ready to excoriate the semantic ignorance implicit in such usage apart from the modern-day social implications.
• I'm loath to characterize anyone as being ignorant for statements such as "editor still hasn't grasped". Such a characterization would be sua sponte uncivil. I'm entirely prepared to delinate the semantic ignorance implicit in a statement that conflates the meanings of grasp versus acknowledge versus admitted. I concede being powerless to control what others guilessly justify for themselves.
• Also FTR, I'm careful to distinguish vituperating ridiculous premises, arguments, and conclusions without ad hominem insults. If you feel personally abraded for criticisms of your edits, tough. If I've made any vituperative comments about any editor's person, kindly give an example.
• In a similar vein, Wikipedia is not a social media site where editors acquire capital (or typically seek plaudits) for "a fine edit" commentary, nor am I one to take umbrage at subjective characterizations such as "a ridiculous edit summary". Please better acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia guidance on allowable content in edit summaries, which does permit pointed objections to the substance of the edit itself. To reiterate, if you feel personally abraded for criticisms of your edits, tough. If you want to criticize the verbiage in an edit summary, a talk page such as this one is the proper place for it. E.g., I'll opine how "That was a fine edit (apart from the ridiculous edit summary)" is puerile glibberish for an edit summary and a characterization that I'd deem inconsequential on a talk page.
• FYI: I chose MelanieN (who is thoughtful, kind, and chill, especially to newbies) to report your edit summary anamolies rather than (a) choosing a sysop who'd impulsively ban you, or (b) instigating a Noticeboard Incident that would invite the scrutiny of a host of sysops who'd impulsively ban you. I'm not one to bear ill will toward editors who make good faith edits and I hold no grudges against editors who make edits that don't pass my muster, but I do insist that editors follow the Wikipedia guidelines to avoid edit summaries that are nonrelevant to the substance of an article (e.g., a demand to "Read, learn, think, learn surprising new facts, be corrected, think again, edit; repeat as needed ... then ... STOP!■ ■ ■" or emoticons of any sort). If you're so inclined, post such verbiage to a user's talk page. As a fan of apophasis, I need not mention how I'd deem such an imperative as "Read, learn..." to be moronic, and I'd have no inclination to characterize the poster as moronic despite what I might believe to the contrary.
• To MelanieN: Sorry for this wall of text on your talk page. Sometimes I forget my comments might take longer to read than it takes me to write.
• P.S. I'm unfamiliar with the "drop the stick" phrase and can't rightly guess whether it equates to drop the baton or intended to mean drop the schtick or something otherwise. Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Dominic, rather than deal with the same issues at all places where you have posted, I reply here only.

Goodbye, and good luck! ☺♥ 49.190.56.203 (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Christmas in the Park (San Jose) was nominated for deletion again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Job Done
		In thanks for nine years of adminship now humbly resigned. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was very sorry to hear of your resignation (over at the unnameable site). The admin corps is the poorer for it, and thank you from me, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you allowed to leave? What Donovan would have said on retiring his mop:

“I did not want no job upon the board. I just wanted to take a broom and sweep the bloody floor.” "Here's your gold watch and the shackles for your chain. And your piece of paper to say you left here sane."

O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, it's a real pleasure to have served alongside you, and my deepest thanks for your guidance and support, and nomination, as I first became an administrator. Cheers. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this through the admin newsletter. I am sorry to see that you have resigned the tools and second Yngvadottir's comment that the admin corps is poorer for it. I do hope to still see you around the 'pedia in the years to come. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts here. I wish you the best, and hope to see you around. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, Chris, Yngvadottir, Objective, Kevin, and Alan! I'm not leaving Wikipedia, and hopefully I will see some of you around. MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks also to Barkeep and Buster for their kind comments at WP:BN. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thanking me for thanking you. BusterD (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You're welcome. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best to you, Melanie! I hope life will circle you back at some point. Valereee (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Valereee! Could happen, you never know. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Please accept this barnstar. I've always appreciated your calm, rational, and collaborative approach to editing. You may not have done much with the admin mop recently, but you have consistently been a good example for the rest of us. ~Awilley (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Awilley! I am moved by the number of people who have come by here to say nice things, after my minimal participation over the last couple of years. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

• Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

---

Hello, MelanieN,

I'm so sorry to see that you have handed in your mop. I often run into older AFDs that you closed so your admin history is still alive for me. I hope you will enjoy your future pursuits and the return to being a regular editor. Many thanks for all you did here (thus far!). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What???? Say it ain't so!!! Your help as an admin will be missed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh no! I would've crashed and burned years ago if not for your guidance. you are a model for all admins. soibangla (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your adminship service and for your positive attitude along the way. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Liz, Muboshgu, soibangla, and North America - thank you so much for your kind comments. I have enjoyed working with each of you. I am not leaving Wikipedia, just giving back the mop, and I will hope to encounter you here from time to time. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Me too, catching up on news and wanted to send my thanks for your service, which always stood out to me as especially wise and valuable to the project. Really appreciate all you’ve done and glad to hear you won’t be gone completely! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your tireless 9 years of service as an administrator. The encyclopedia is better for it and poorer without it. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi MelanieN! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just wondering why the talk page of this article is protected. 2403:6200:8810:F964:B067:4711:4774:5642 (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea. I wasn't the one who protected it. In fact I haven't been to that article at all. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just making you aware of this current RfC on the talk page. Hoping you can be the one to resolve it when the time comes. Vrrajkum (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert, but I will not be able to assist with this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]