User talk:MelanieN/Archive 26

Thursday, August 4 San Diego Wiki-Dinner

Join us for an informal San Diego Wiki-Dinner meeting with visiting Wikipedians Rosiestep and Fuzheado, to get to know each other, and to help prepare for WikiConference North America in October 2016! --Pharos (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably need to watch

Well, IP 217.28.6.255 is now stalking my work and making POINT-y edits, (since you shut down the edit-warring at Palfrey with page protection, and thank you for that!), and is causing some minor problems for other people also. Here's the ones of mine: [1], [2], and [3]. This account just started editing this month (with one prior edit in March), and I kind of suspect a returned user. I've put two warnings up, I really am not ready to drag this user to the drama boards because they mostly appear to just be kind of thin-skinned, but perhaps you may want to keep an eye on them? Montanabw^(talk) 08:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. They certainly do sound like a returned editor, not a new one. IMO they are not currently disruptive, but worth keeping an eye on. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary truthful in interview

Melanie, hypothetically would you support adding the following to the email controversy section in Hillary's bio:

In an interview with Fox News in late July, Clinton stated “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.” PolitiFact awarded Clinton four "Pinocchios", its worst rating, for her statement saying "While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public."[4][5][6][7]

Would you consider it appropriate to add both Clinton's statement and the interpretation? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, CFredlin. I haven't been much involved with the Clinton article and I will let the regular editors there deal with that question. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

recent edit

Hi Melanie, I saw your edit on the Trump presidential page. It fails to mention that Trump started the interview with Stephanopolous by speaking positively and with empathy about Mr. Khan's loss. It's still a page about a living person, and should tell the whole story, not just an edited version of what really happened that leaves off Trump's opening remarks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, SW3 5DL. Yes, he did start out by saying Mr. Khan "was emotional" and "seems like a nice guy," and later said "I wish him the best of luck". If that was all he said, there would be no story. It was what he immediately went on to say (his "maybe she wasn't allowed to speak" comment was part of the same sentence) that got all the publicity, and still does. As an encyclopedia, we don't report every word that someone said; we focus on what the Reliable Sources focused on. That's how we decide what to include and what not. For that matter I left out his "Did Hillary Clinton's campaign write that?" comment too, for the same reason. As for "empathy", when he was asked "what would you say to this father?", he replied "I would say, we've had a lot of problems with Islamic terrorism". I wouldn't exactly call that speaking positively and with empathy about Mr. Khan's loss, would you?--MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I wouldn't call that empathy. I had that wrong. I think it could be paraphrased for weight, however. This isn't something Trump started, like he did with the Judge. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I see that CFredkin has added the sentence you wanted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Melanie, I modified the edit here, for weight and copy edit, and I included the statements Trump released according to the Wall Street Journal. I left it as comments from both men and left out the characterizations by the media and made a note on the talk page. Let me know what you think. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

rescued for San Diego
... you were recipient no. 562 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again, Gerda! You are pretty precious yourself! --MelanieN (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I was told yesterday to look for another hobby (talk of Gustav Holst), and reverted on Giulio Cesare, today asked to revert my disruptive edits (project classical music), and reverted on Handel's lost Hamburg operas, - so appreciate the support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Wildfire

Hello! I have recently started a new WikiProject and am trying to recruit new members. The project, WikiProject Wildfire, focuses on articles that relate to wildfires. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. From updating templates, to classifying and improving articles. Any level of commitment is welcome! If you care to just add some input on the founding of the new project, awesome. If you would like to take an active role in editing articles, that is awesome as well! Knowledge of wildfires is NOT a prerequisite for joining the project. In fact, it would be great to have some members of the project who are NOT fire-buffs. That way we make sure that articles aren't just written by and for people in the fire community. If this is something you have any interest in, I would love to have you join the project! Please feel free to join the discussion or leave me a message on my talk page. (Note that you are receiving this message from me because I saw you made multiple edits on a wildfire related page, specifically Old Fire. Not just spamming you at random.) Hope you have a great day! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Prince Abdi-Iltiré BLPPROD

"Once properly placed, [a BLPPROD] can only be removed if a reliable source is added." This article was unreferenced when tagged (see diff), and Transfermarkt, the only source currently cited in the article, is decidedly not reliable. Most of its content is user-generated, meaning it's considered a self-published source (see this RSN discussion for more details). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I didn't notice that the references were added AFTER tagging; in that case, the references must be reliable. And in a brief search I did not find any reliable sources. You are right and I will delete the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Melanie, I'm doubtless wrong in thinking this, but it seems to me, and I'm not judging, mind, but ever since I changed your edit to the Khan section, you've followed up several of my talk page comments with what seem to be corrective comments. Like I've fallen short somehow. I feel like I can't get it right for getting it wrong. I don't see you doing that to anyone else. In any event, I meant no offense to your edit. In making my edit, I simply asked myself what would I want to know if I were coming to the article wondering what was going on with Mr. Khan and Mr. Trump. I wanted to know what each man said that caused the media to set the world on fire. Literally, I thought Trump must have said something like we should drown puppies, or something. No offense intended. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I actually didn't even remember that it was you who changed the section. I had no idea that you would take my comments personally, or attribute my later posts to the idea that I somehow had it in for you. I'm sorry if you got that impression. Now I understand why I several times saw you apologize for some perfectly innocent comment. The truth is that half the time I respond to a comment without even noticing who made it; to me it is just a discussion about the content. You comment a lot at those talk pages; naturally I respond; naturally I don't always agree. Nothing personal intended. And please feel free to disagree with me, strongly if you feel strongly. That's what talk pages are for. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

HNBA

Hi Melanie. I was recently looking at the essay WP:Writing for the opponent and it made me think of you. 🙂 I want to include some undisputed factual, reliably-sourced information in Wikipedia, and would be willing to do it virtually however you want. But I don't know how, and would appreciate if you would tell me how.

Two articles at Wikipidia (Gonzalo P. Curiel and Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016) discuss that Curiel was accused of ties to "La Raza" which allegedly opposes Trump, and both of those Wikipedia articles debunk those accusations. However, neither of those Wikipedia articles mention the reliably-sourced fact (reported by the LA Times and CNN) that Curiel is a member of the HNBA which has boycotted Trump.[8] If you would please consider this in as neutral a manner as you can, how can I insert this info somewhere into Wikipedia? I take WP:Preserve seriously, and I cannot remember ever trying to irrevocably banish reliably-sourced factual information from this encyclopedia. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Anythingyouwant. Well, let's see. There are four articles that all deal with this to some extent: the Donald Trump article, the Presidential campaign article, the Curiel article, and the Trump University article. IMO the only place where it might logically be included would be the Curiel article, since it relates to his membership in societies, but I see there are sections in all four articles where it could be mentioned. This has been extensively discussed at several of these articles, and consensus was to leave it out - for several reasons (I'm not going to search the archives). I know that you are aware of this, since you have tried to insert it into multiple articles. You tried to insert it into Trump University back in June, and I told you there was "lengthy discussion at other talk pages" not to include it.[9] Also in June you tried to insert it into the Curiel article [10] and you participated in the discussion at that talk page, following which you reinserted a version of it [11] in what was probably as close as you could come to avoiding a "guilt by association" feel. That section stayed in for several days but was eventually deleted by MastCell as a "cherry-picked factoid". I'm really not going to go through and research the whole timeline, but I can see that you have tried to do this repeatedly and it has always been deleted - and it has been discussed on multiple talk pages without consensus to include it. BTW "reliably sourced factual information" is often excluded, for many reasons: Weight, Relevance, Degree of coverage, Neutrality, etc. Bottom line, I do not feel there is consensus to include this anywhere in Wikipedia. So I won't be helping you write it. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for repeating the chronology that we were both already aware of. Should I characterize your "sorry" as sincere? It has a different ring to it. The reasons you cite (weight, relevance, degree of coverage, neutrality) are reasons to exclude from a particular article. They are not reasons to exclude from the entire encyclopedia forever. I truly am disappointed that you feel entitled to engage in the latter activity. I would be glad to describe the policies and guidelines that forbid that activity, but you don't seem interested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

So it's your belief that every reliably sourced fact, reported anywhere, with any degree of coverage, must be included in the encyclopedia somewhere? And that there are policies and guidelines that require us to include, somewhere in the encyclopedia, every single fact in the world - regardless of degree of coverage, neutrality, etc - because we mustn't "irrevocably banish it" or "exclude it from the encyclopedia forever"? That is not my understanding of how Wikipedia works. I believe our job as encyclopedists is to create balanced, readable, accurate articles, and to select what to include and what not to include, based on multiple factors but particularly coverage in reliable secondary sources, as interpreted by consensus. And of course subject to re-evaluation if circumstances change, such as wider coverage in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It's my understanding that every reliably sourced and undisputed fact, with very few specific exceptions, can be included in the encyclopedia somewhere; if an appropriate article does not currently exist then an appropriate article including that fact is not forbidden. This puts editors in a position of organizing knowledge rather than censoring it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned you

... here. You don't have to read the whole thing, just search for your username. Please note that I am NOT trying to solicit a positive comment or support. Comment if you wish, or not, and if you do, please give a straight forward assessment of my editing in this topic area, even if it's critical. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind...

but I needed to say this somewhere on Wikipedia. I've repeatedly tried to begin the following at the Trump article. I say "tried" because I did 30 rewrites but none were satisfying. I wound up with this and I knew it wouldn't "fly" at the article. I didn't want to get sanctioned from participating...so I thought "where can I say this?" Thanks. Buster Seven Talk 08:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Avocating assasination or the power of unification

Todays Trump quotes are troubling. And the fact that no editor (except for that silly troll) has touched this Second amendment story, leads me to believe that its troubling for alot of us. Where do we start? Is it the “dishonest media” for distorting his words or is it my lying ears that hear a real unmistakable call to action...violent action. I'm reminded of the Sarah Palin article and the March crosshairs on a map "targeting" legislators who voted for Obama's health care bill. Months later, some raving lunatic tried to assassinate Gabby Giffords (one of the legislators in the crosshairs). Where do we start? It is numbing trying to help create a fair and impartial article about this guy..... Buster Seven Talk

Sorry, I've been busy in Real Life and missed your comment - and the whole discussion. I understand your frustration. It looks as if a fair wording was worked out, with commendable cooperation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

About the hat

Thank you, MelanieN, for your kind offer to instruct me about how to use the hat to distinguish between the articles Edward William Cornelius Humphrey and Edward Cornelius Humphrey. I'm eager to learn. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. First of all, I'm moving your note to the bottom of the page, which is where new talk page messages should always go. Now: A hatnote is a message that goes at the top of the article page. There are various templates you can use. The one you want is explained at WP:SIMILAR. At top of each page you would put {{about|what this article is about|what the other article is about|name of the other article}} Notice that the various parts of the note are separated by a | mark. So at the top of the Edward William Cornelius Humphrey page, you would put {{about|the lawyer and church elder|the physician|Edward Cornelius Humphrey}} which produces a notice that looks like this:

This page is about the lawyer and church elder. For the physician, see Edward Cornelius Humphrey.

For the other article, the first item is what that article is about, then a description of the similar article, then the name of the similar article. Try it, and be sure to use Page Preview until you get it right. Even experienced editors may need three or four tries. By using Page Preview, you destroy the evidence of all the times you didn't get it right! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about placing my message in the wrong place. Thank you for your time and the clear instructions. Now I understand why it's called a hatnote. I'll try it tomorrow. I'm on Eastern Standard Time.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Typo

"This is to warn you that you are in danger of violating the Discretionary Sanctions on the page Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016...." I think you meant the main Trump article (which I've de-watchlisted by the way).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, thank you. These articles all blur together after a while... --MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My memories of high school are a blur too. No coincidence.  :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

1RR

• You might want to double check the time stamps on these two edits: [12] [13] ~Awilley (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Awilley, I don't understand your point. What about the time stamps? --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more clear. Both edits are reverts, falling within a 24 hour time period. It looks like you made them on different days, not realizing you were going over the 1RR. ~Awilley (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

OIC. Guess I should trout myself? Or would a self-block be more appropriate? --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not revert yourself on one of them? I'll probably re-do whichever one you revert, since I think they were both good edits. That page isn't on my watchlist, but I can still go there and do stuff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A trout or self-block would be over the top. It was an accident, and you seem to be one of the few interested in keeping some sort of decorum at the article. A self-revert would be fine, as Anythingyouwant suggested. The important thing for me is that you model the behavior you desire to see in others. ~Awilley (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Same or different material

Oh god. See, this is why we need to change the language "whether involving the same or different material" in 3RR. Everyone knows Melanie wasn't edit warring. We end up spending more time bickering over who broke "da rulez" on 1RR articles than actually improving those articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion, Dr. Fleischman. It was enlightening. I honestly have always thought that 3RR and 1RR referred to doing the SAME revert over and over; that to me is edit warring, that's the kind of behavior I would block for. And I have seen these silly arguments over "you were reverting me!" "no, YOU were reverting ME!" which as Doc says are doing nothing to enhance the encyclopedia. But now I understand, so I will self-revert the POV tag. Thanks for calling this to my attention, Awilley. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not the type of thing I'd block for either, but there are admins out there who would. I remember one case where an admin had placed a 1RR/week discretionary sanction on an article. A veteran editor with 80,000 edits and a clean block log decided to try and set a good example by making one edit to the article per week. Not one revert, but one edit per week. Anyway, at some point he made two edits spaced 6.5 days apart that could both be seen as "technical reverts" (for removing some amount of text, or the like). Someone reported him (by email) to the admin, who immediately slapped him with a 24 hour block. Anyway, that's the kind of stuff that really makes me mad, and is the kind of adminning I try to avoid...enforcing rules for the sake of rules. That said, the rules do come in handy when it's time to remove someone who is actually being disruptive or who clearly has an axe to grind. ~Awilley (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The even bigger problem is the chilling effect that kind of adminning has on productive editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a balancing act, all right. Over-aggressive enforcement can turn away a productive editor who made a mistake. On the other hand, problem editors drive away many more productive editors than an occasional overzealous block does. Being the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" brings together both the best and the worst, and one job of administrators is to try to sort them out and keep the project going. Not an easy job, and not all admins approach it the same way. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about editors who have been slapped and then leave the project. I'm talking about all of the others who haven't been slapped but are afraid they might be, so they don't touch 1RR pages, as well as the editors who bravely set foot in 1RR pages but who edit much less and more cautiously there for fear of being punished for technical, non-edit warring 1RR violations (myself included). It's true, real edit warriors and POV pushers suppress productive editing as well. But by tweaking 3RR a bit we should be able to mitigate that problem and remove the double whammy of fear of overzealous enforcement of 1RR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I hear you. Now that I actually understand what the rules are - and learn that I accidentally broke them! - I have started keeping a log of my edits on DS articles, with date and time. I guess that's what everybody has to do if they want to stay within the rules, and it is burdensome. I particularly have trouble remembering that this applies even when there is consensus to do the edit. I do realilze what a mess these articles would be if there weren't strict rules in place. But I would agree with a tweak to the definitions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, that "whether involving the same or different material" clause is used in idiotic ways in attempts to catch an editor out. I'd much rather have it read, ""whether involving the same or different but related material". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant. That's the kind of modest but effective change that has a shot of getting through, no? What forum do you recommend to maximize traction? WT:EW? WP:VPP? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Once the exact wording is worked out, probably a RFC at WT:EW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a wording along the lines of "the same or similar material" would work. Also, I would suggest having this modify only the 1RR restriction, not the 3RR. I think 3 is a reasonable limit for non-vandalism reverts, and I definitely wouldn't want to give people a license to unlimited reverts just because they involve different material. ~Awilley (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest "related" (meaning on the same subject, or the same aspect of the subject) rather than "similar" (similar how? grammatically? made by the same person?) Related is clearer. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A key issue is how revert is defined: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." I've had editors ask for a block when their "opponent" reverts something, gets re-reverted, and then improves the grammar/readability of a completely unrelated paragraph. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If 3RR and/or 1RR never apply to material about which there is no recent dispute between editors, then the policies ought to say that, IMO. Also, if the rules for 3RR and 1RR are different (beyond the obvious difference between "3" and "1") then you'd have both policies applying at the same time to a single article, rather than 1RR completely displacing 3RR, and this seems to ask quite a bit of editors who are trying to follow policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not think the community would go for different ground rules for 1RR and 3RR. The whole point is that the rule stays the same except for fewer reverts allowed. And I don't think the community would go for the "recent dispute" rule, which is certainly good in principle but would be impossible to enforce and subject to abuse. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the ground rules for 3RR and 1RR probably ought to be the same, or else things get too complicated, but (as AWilley said) we shouldn't give anyone a license to unlimited reverts just because they involve different material. Do you think that an editor who is not "edit-warring" should ever be subject to 1RR or 3RR? I ask this because the actual definition of 3RR doesn't seem to say anything about edit-warring, but still that definition exists on a page about edit-warring.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Whut? WP:3RR: "Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block." The rule in the red box just codifies 3RR for simple understanding. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

So you apparently read the stuff in the red box this way (I insert "edit-warring" in brackets):

That's a reasonable reading, and it requires a two-part test: (1) is the editor edit-warring; and (2) is the editor violating the stuff in the red box. Read in isolation, the stuff in the red box (without the bolded words) could easily be read as applying to any edit that changes anything in an article. For clarity, I would make the bolded words above explicit, if that's what is meant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"easily be read as applying to any edit that changes anything in an article." It is read that way right now. Hence, my suggestion to change the wording. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm suggesting to put in the bracket words "edit-warring". Do you have any objection to that? Wouldn't that limit the scope of the rule?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There's little chance that will be added as it reads clumsily and is redundant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you folks carry on then. I thought you wanted to make clear that changing content that no one has been discussing or debating or fighting about doesn't count as a revert. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it does. If I add something to an article and no one has an issue with it at the time and then another editor shows up two months later and removes it, that counts as their first revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be conflating the concepts of a "revert" and a "revert that you should be blocked for". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

detraction from this conversation

Neil, I don't want to detract from this conversation, so we can continue elsewhere if you like. I not too long ago filed a 3RR report at the noticeboard that I subsequently withdrew. Here it is. I described four edits that I characterized as reverts. Admins advised me that only one of them would count for 1RR purposes, and so there was no 1RR violation. But all four of them seem to fit what you say is presently considered a revert. I would support fixing the 3RR definition so that at least some of those four edits don't qualify as reverts. I'm hesitant to define the ground rules for 1RR and 3RR differently, and also don't want to give editors a blank check to alter as much material as they want as long as it's not related material. But I would have no problem at all clarifying the definition so that a revert does not refer to an edit undoing the work of another editor if the edit is not part of a fight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC) All I see there is you bickering with DrFleischman over a pointy report you made. Don't do that. I don't even know why you brought that up because that report reflects badly on you. And it annoys admins that have to deal with these games. --NeilN talk to me 04:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Neil, if I try my best to abide by a stupid rule, then my view is that others should as well. As far as I can tell, all of the four edits there were "reverts" as you explained above: "If I add something to an article and no one has an issue with it at the time and then another editor shows up two months later and removes it, that counts as their first revert." I think this rule is stupid, and would like to change it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC) And the place to suggest that is Wikipedia talk:Edit warring, not at WP:ANEW with a pointy report. We were trying to work out a wording change that stood a chance of being accepted above. Any significant changes won't be. --NeilN talk to me 05:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Okay, well, I'm all ears.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the "same or different" language has evolved over the years but here is the edit that I believe first articulated the concept. There was no discussion about it at the time, as far as I can tell. Since then there have been a variety of discussions about proposals to change this aspect of 3RR, although none have gotten very far. There has been a fair amount of support for a change in principle, but every proposal has been shot down with arguments arguments along the lines of, "The proposed language is too vague or susceptible to lawyering," or, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

After having reviewed past talk page discussions and considering the enforceability of various language changes, I'm leaning toward proposing the following language (change in bold): "An editor must not perform more than three reverts involving the same or overlapping material on a single page within a 24-hour period." Thoughts? (I'm veering away from the terms "related" and "similar" as they're arguably vague and susceptible to wikilawyering.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't oppose this (because I'm so congenial!) but I doubt it will fly for the reason given above by AWilley: "I definitely wouldn't want to give people a license to unlimited reverts just because they involve different material."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if it flies. The main response to that argument, which could be included in the proposal preemptively, is that the purpose of 3RR is to reduce edit warring, making excessive reverts to different material isn't edit warring, and such conduct is still sanctionable under other policies and guidelines (most notably WP:OWN, WP:DE, and potentially WP:HOUND). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Does removal equal reversion?

Neil, could I ask you about this? "If I add something to an article and no one has an issue with it at the time and then another editor shows up two months later and removes it, that counts as their first revert," although "not something you should be blocked for". Does that mean that removing ANY content counts as a revert? Because if something has been there longer than a few days (on very active articles, a few hours) it is impossible to tell if it is something that was added by a single editor (which would clearly make it a revert), or something that has been in the article since the beginning. If I am reading you correctly, every time you remove something from an article that is a revert - and if you remove three unrelated things from the article in three different consecutive edits, that is three reverts and you broke the rules. Have I got that right? --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Does that mean that removing ANY content counts as a revert? - Yes, per "undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". Note it's "other editors'" and not "another editor's"

"that is three reverts" - No per "series of consecutive edits... counts as a revert." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It might be better to leave the red box at WP:3RR alone, and just add an eighth exemption, like "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:...8. Editing different material (rather than the same material) if that different material had not been edited by anyone during the past X days."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You can suggest that. It'll be shot down fairly quickly and probably rather loudly, but you can suggest that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:NeilN, do you think it would be an improvement, or could be improved? I know you suggested above changing "whether involving the same or different material" to read "whether involving the same or different but related material", in the red box. But AWilley responded that it should "modify only the 1RR restriction, not the 3RR." And then DrFleischman objected to "different ground rules for 1RR and 3RR". So maybe we can break the logjam by focusing on the exemptions instead of the red box? I think an additional exemption seems less dramatic than amending the core rule in the red box, and so might be more acceptable. Incidentally, I don't plan on making any proposal myself, at least not without any support here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, think about the logical consequences of that interpretation. That can't be the rule. That would defy common sense, and if it really were the rule then 3RR would say so explicitly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

DrFleischman It does say so explicitly, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not at all the same thing as saying that any deletion or modification of content is a revert, which as Melanie noted is the practical effect of your interpretation. If your interpretation is correct, then 3RR would be much clearer by defining a "revert" as "any deletion, modification, or re-addition of any content on the page." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Either NeilN is correct, or else it's very vague, and in either case it needs improvement. I think it's standard practice at the edit-warring noticeboard, when an editor is accused of deleting material, then being reverted, deleting a second time, being reverted, deleting a third time, being reverted, and then deleting a fourth time (all of the same material) to have the first deletion count as a revert even if that material had not been edited in months preceding the deletions. So I think NeilN is correct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the 3RR report template calls for a "previous version reverted to," which contradicts this view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that the report template is not a policy or guideline. Anyway, in practice, I think people in my example situation would typically give either the version following the first deletion as the version reverted to, or else the quiescent version that preceded the whole incident (since that's the version that the other editors reverted to).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure Melanie's talk page isn't the place to debate the finer points of the 3RR text. My statements are based on observing ANEW for years as well as past discussions on the policy talk page. For example: Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring/Archives/2013/March#Reversion_of_old_text_not_being_counted_as_a_revert Bottom line: Admins have leeway to decide whether to block or not. And perhaps an unnecessary reminder - you do not have to break 3RR to get blocked for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel free. Per my user page: Things I've learned at Wikipedia: When you become an administrator, your user talk page gets a lot more interesting. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Neil, I think the point of this discussion is to weigh whether some of that leeway should be taken away when it inhibits productive editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If that's your goal then again, not much is going to get accomplished on a user talk page. For the record, I would be opposed to the suggestion that leeway be restricted. Too many edit warriors think they're productively editing and too many productive editors are trapped by edit warriors playing gotcha! Leeway allows admins to address both situations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Except that there are overzealous admins, and other admins who take the term "bright-line rule" for what it means and block productive editors because they believe that's what the policy tells them to do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Different admins will always have different approaches - a spectrum of responses. Tweaking the wording is not going to change that. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It might narrow the spectrum though. Screen out those harmful ultraviolet rays. Plus editors who are conscientious about following bright-line rules wouldn't have to play on such an uneven field.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And productive editors aren't exempt from 3RR. There's about six or seven different criteria I go through in my head when looking at these situations. Sometimes the result is a block for a "productive editor". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment

I struck this at your request, but what part of it was inappropriate? I understand we should try to focus on the edit rather than the editor, which I generally do, but breaking that guideline on occasion is hardly a sanctionable offense. I don't see any incivility or personal attacks in there either. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw it as kind of grave-dancing. "Goody, goody, he's gone! And let me throw a few insults out the door after him!" Thank you for striking it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I am glad that editor has moved on, as he was extremely disruptive to my editing. And I'm not aware of any insults in my comment, just verifiable facts. I nevertheless understand the comment was unnecessary and only served to fan the flames, so I regret that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, all the flames are extinguished as far as I'm concerned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Longstanding content

Hi Melanie. Usually at Wikipedia articles, especially high-profile and controversial Wikipedia articles, it generally requires some degree of consensus to remove content that has been longstanding in the article, so lack of consensus ensures longstanding content remains. Is this now out the window at the Donald Trump article? The discretionary sanctions say "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." So, if someone removes longstanding content via a bold edit without any consensus, then lack of consensus requires that longstanding content goes down the drain. Am I reading this right? It seems very destabilizing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the same, and I have seen it pointed out on other pages: this particular wording of the DS gives the advantage to the person removing content. All they have to do to make it "contentious" is to remove it, and it can't be restored without a talk-page consensus. Yet another way in which the DS rules are poorly written. As you can tell from earlier discussion here on this talk page, I am not a fan of the DS and would encourage attempts to tweak them, but it's possible they can only be changed by ArbCom. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I do not interpret the DS wording that way. The removal of longstanding content is the edit that can be challenged via reversion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting, Neil. I wonder if this has been spelled out in discussion anywhere? Because I have seen it applied that ANY removal of content means that it can't be reinserted without consensus. I like your interpretation better! --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the wording carefully specifies "reinstating any edits that have been challenged" instead of "reinstating any additions that have been challenged" for this very reason. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This is making my head spin. So if someone inserts new material, someone else can remove it and it can't be restored without consensus. That's easy enough. But if someone removes longstanding material, the removal can be reverted by someone else who thinks removing it is contentious? And it then can't be removed again without consensus at the talk page? So in this particular case, it was DFredkin's removal that was the "edit", and VM was entitled to revert that edit and restore the material? Wow. No wonder you see these arguments all the time, "you reverted me!" "no, YOU reverted ME!" --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with NeilN's interpretation. The wording is meant to favor the status quo and stabilize the article, and it's main function IMO is to get people to follow WP:BRDby preventing them from making a Bold edit and then immediately reverting the Revert (gaming the 1RR). ~Awilley (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad to hear this. I will quote the two of you the next time I see someone say that the DS mean you can't ever restore content which has been removed. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It can still get messy if you dive down into the details and try to view any edit that removes content as a "revert". I'm usually looking for longer term patterns of bulldozing over other editors and gaming the system. For that reason I'm more concerned with CFredkin citing the DS to say that people can't revert their edits [14] [15] than I am with VM's revert (and followup partial self-revert). Although if the material CFredkin removed had been added the day before that could change things. (I wouldn't be surprised if it's been added and removed many times.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

And editors will want you to define what "longstanding" means. For me, it depends on the article. For an article as highly edited and intensely watched as Donald Trump I'm generally using a time period of 4-6 weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

And since I was applying an incorrect interpretation in my comments at your talk page, Neil, I have posted there to say I was wrong, and VM did not in fact have to self-revert his restoration of the material CF deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, I wasn't aware of that discussion. It's probably best to let them hash it out on the talk page anyway from here. ~Awilley (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

And thanks, Awilley and Neil, for the clarifications. I think I will retitle this page from "User talk:MelanieN" to "The education of MelanieN." Anything else you want to share with the class? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Having a glass of scotch on hand by your desk usually helps. (Just kidding (mostly)). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if you're sometimes more tempted to throw it at the screen than to drink it? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"But if someone removes longstanding material, the removal can be reverted...?" There must be a policy or guideline or essay somewhere that mentions "longstanding" material. Has anyone found it? --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI to all involved, Anythingyouwant is citing this discussion to stand for a rule. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there some problem here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump article

Can you please wait a sec on moving the bankruptcy stuff? Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops, too late. I'll revert. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. See you at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll comment right away at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

An other CfR discussion for US city categories

There's a new Categories for Renaming discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Seattle. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Rio 2016 Medal Counts.

You have incorrectly banned me from editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics_medal_table

"00:31, 17 August 2016 MelanieN (talk | contribs) protected 2016 Summer Olympics medal table [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 00:31, 24 August 2016) (Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content) (hist)"

My source was https://www.rio2016.com/en

Apologies if I did not cite correctly. As of now, it is STILL incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuzzleScot (talk • contribs) 11:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, PuzzleScot, and thanks for your note. The reason I added protection to the page was because of edits by IP (unregistered) editors; it had nothing to do with you. You should be able to edit the article, because you have been here long enough and made enough edits to qualify as an autoconfirmed user. However, when I checked your user rights just now I did not see "autoconfirmed" even though it should be there. That could be some kind of error; just to make sure I have added the "confirmed" user right to your profile. If you were not able to edit previously, you should be able to now. If other users disagree with your edits, discuss the issue on the article talk page, as I see you are already doing. So you should be all good now. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you. PuzzleScot (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Weirdness

Hello M. I noticed your edit here. A few minutes ago this editor (er I mean troll) Wiki username generator (talk · contribs) created the category - and then NeilN deleted it - you probably noticed this. But you will also note that there are two other editors who have the category on their userpages. From what I can find all of them put it there as a joke - like several other joke red cats that are occasionally used. I'm only mentioning this in case Drmies decides to restore it. There sure is a bunch of odd stuff going on tonight - my time. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Marnette. Yes, I removed it in haste and in error. Luckily Lady of Shallott knew Drmies better than I did, and restored it. I have apologized to the good doctor. Yes, there has been an unusual amount of weirdness today. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Drmies's page

Hi MelanieN, I understand why, without being familiar with his page, you'd think that category on Drmies's page was trolling. Well, here are a couple relevant diffs for you: category added and its deletion reverted. Regards, LadyofShalott 03:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting me, Lady. The reason I did is that a troll had just created that category, citing Drmies as the reason for creating it, so I rushed to rescue the good doctor from what turned out to be his own sense of humor. Guess I will have to trout myself. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries! I don't think you even need the trout, unless it happens to be grilled and covered with almonds. That was a reasonable assumption on your part! :) LadyofShalott 03:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Mmmmmmm trout almondine is a favorite. What kind of wine would you like me to bring? :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Marnette! I think a bottle of Berncasteler Doctor would be very appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And here's me relaxing with a Calvados after a long day and thinking of going for fish and chips... A good choice of wine, but not for vinegary chips. I'm reminded of some beautiful Llyn Brenig trout in a pub by Bala Lake Llyn Tegid - no almonds but they needed none. Peridon (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Calvados may be good for relaxing after a long day (or after accidentally vandalizing Drmies's user page?) but probably not the best to go with fish and chips. Ale or stout, anyone? --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

Is this considered a reliable source? Whenever I have a question as to what was actually said in a speech, its the place I go to. Just today, I wondered if it was the impartial 'facts only' no talking heads or advertising kind of reference that could be used many places in the 'pedia. Thoughts? Buster Seven Talk 18:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Buster, I am not familiar with this site. To the extent that it shows and archives full transcripts or audios of speeches, I certainly think those could be used as primary sources. However, the articles I looked at appeared to be more opinion than straight reporting, so possibly not suitable as a Reliable Source. I think it would be a judgment call. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor's image-permissions issues

I have left a note on this user's talk page about this issue but thought I should ask for some help on this matter. Mitzi.humphrey has uploaded various images to Commons and therefore to Wikipedia and from what I can tell the permissions appear to state "own work" when that is not necessarily the case. I think this editor is a conscientious contributor and applaud their zeal but to me many of these permissions are in error. One image appears to be a photo of a printed photo from a published book, another is a photo of a vintage photo with no photographer or date given, another is a photo of a vintage photo with an errant title and so on as seen in their Commons edits. I noticed that you had weighed in at an AfD on an article this editor wrote and thought you would be familiar with their editing. I would appreciate some help - I don't know quite what to do. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for calling my attention to this, Shearonink. I have researched this situation and commented on the user's talk page, and I pinged some people who are admins at both en.wiki and commons to get their advice. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Um.... so like what's up with Kai?

The article doesn't seem in need of much work. It's been almost a month since it was "prepared" for userfication. Kai is a really relevant search topic right now, and the last even half-decent edit on the article was by me (so much userfication going on). It doesn't help when you type "Kai singer" in Google, the Wikipedia page it directs you to is THIS. So can u clarify when this article is going to be released into the public again? Thanks! Esmost ^πк 01:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Esmost, and thanks for your note. This was actually userfied two months ago, but the person who requested hasn't done anything with it. You have made some improvements, that's good. The requirement for it to be restored is that it be significantly different/improved from the article that was deleted. I know you can't see that article, but you can see here what reasons people gave for deleting it. Do you think those reasons have now been overcome? Are the new sources "reliable" as Wikipedia defines it? Has she done any new, notable recording where she is the lead singer? IMO looking at the page as it now stands it is not greatly different from the deleted one, and her career has not advanced from where it was then. If it was moved to mainspace in its current condition, it would probably get speedy deleted per WP:G4. But if you can improve the article as I indicate here, it might be ready. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, t0tes, but like im not even kidding about this google direct to this page. Like, look at this, after Kai (the singer) became a hot search topic and her Wikipedia page was deleted, all of the page views that are supposed to go to her (non-existent) Wikipedia page are being directed towards a band that broke up over TEN years ago. I guess she's not worth an article, but like people are actually confusing her for a band. As well as the fact that links to her page are all red now (so can u awb that, im busy). That's a problem. Just saying. Whatever. Esmost ^πк 20:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar and a half

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for being the first editor in seven years to cause me to retract a claim, through your painstaking and knowledgeable vetting of my contributions. Dervorguilla (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		For your admirable capability to withstand unsparing criticism, maintain good cheer, and continue collaborating productively in an ideologically charged discussion. Dervorguilla (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Dervorguilla, what a nice surprise! --MelanieN (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:SwisterTwister. Thank you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League

User:Koppapa has asked for a deletion review of 2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 21:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)