User talk:MelanieN/Archive 38

Thank you, SaAnKe, how nice! I hope you have the Stanford article watchlisted, it needs attention from time to time. (Maybe we should just call ourselves Robber Barons - which the student body wanted for a mascot but the administration wouldn't allow?) --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, I see you are a chemist! That was my major too. Have they ever figured out what to do with the old chemistry building, or is it still standing empty? --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll make sure to add it to my watchlist. (It's a pity the Robber Barons idea never got further off the ground; I think the student body could have really gotten creative with it.) As for Old Chem, they renovated the inside and renamed it "The Sapp Center for Science Teaching and Learning." It's a really nice facility, but the downside for the Chemistry Department is that they have to share it with the Biology Department. I'll link some pictures in case you're interested in seeing what it looks like now. [1] [2] [3] SaAnKe 19:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, that's good to know! --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

MealanieN, I salute you for your dedication and volunteer efforts on WP, but I think your last comment at firing of Comey was unconstructive, and surprisingly so for an Admin. You appeared to ignore, or at least do not appear to have replied to my clearly stated objections that were met with the snarky response from JFG that you, intentionally or not, endorsed with your last comment. I think you can do better. No need to reply, I just think you can do better. The current version of the lede represents an agreement among a small number of editors who did not wait for broader participation and is, whether you agree or not, POV in the ways that I stated in clear direct, policy-based terms. If there were broad RS narratives saying the stuff I contested, then you or anyone else who agreed to that new lede could simply have cited the sources to move the discussion forward. SPECIFICO talk 00:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, we go back a long way and I don't want to be in disagreement with you. But I still don't know what you want changed. You initially mentioned the "Comey under pressure" sentence and the "Rosenstein memo" sentence. You apparently found them to be problematic. But since then you just keep repeating "POV" and similar acronyms - and you still haven't said (and apparently refuse to say) what it is you want to see done to the article. Do you think those sentences should be deleted? Reworded? Some additional material added? You have given us no clue. Believe me, I want to work with you on this. It's always been my observation that disagreements can get resolved very quickly if people will just focus on proposed wording and not generalities. Would you be willing to try that approach? --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, I still believe that (however concisely) I made it very clear on the talk page -- and apparently it was clear to at least one other savvy&seasoned NPOV editor who corrected the text -- that stating in WP's voice the false and later disavowed Trump assertion that he fired Comey a) due to then-contemporaneous public opinion against Comey (citing a reference from 5+months prior to the event) and b) the statement widely debunked in RS accounts that anyone at the Justice Dept. initiated that memo -- as if, per the new lede it were based on professional evaluation of Comey's performance rather than the implied threat of dismissal by Trump -- are not NPOV, do not reflect the WEIGHT of RS sourcing, and fail Verification. Now, there are editors who pay less attention to broad mainstream reporting and more attention to, shall we say, alternative views and narratives that are easily accessible on the internet (regardless of their source) and frequently on well-designed sites that by any standard of graphic design and user interface appear to be very solid indeed. But that's why WP has the policies that this rewritten lede so clearly ignored. Moreover as I know you are aware, most editors, including many active and thoughtful recent editors of the American Politics articles such as @Volunteer Marek: the one who corrected part of the lede do not sleep with a computer under the pillow and actually didn't even have a chance to comment before the quick "consensus" for the POV rewrite. Finally, it was not well-written English -- another sign that it happened hasty. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to take this to the article talk page where I will summarize what I think you said. Then let's talk about it there. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. My approach was to let those sleeping dogs lie, after one of them showed a tendency to anger easily, while claiming that the "prior consensus required" clause can be ignored because it was recently discussed with limited participation and the result of that discussion was unclear. We certainly didn't need to invite that battleground mentality and baseless argument into article talk, only to spend valuable editor time defeating it. I fully understand and respect your good intentions. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me if the dogs were sleeping, or simply waiting for 24 hours to pass so they could revert again. I'm familiar with 1RR gaming. As I said at the page, I always prefer to head off potential trouble if possible - whether by page protection, or a warning, or whatever - rather than end up with people getting sanctioned or blocked. Hope you are right that all is quiet now. One of them seems disinclined to discuss, which leaves them with the only other option - namely, dropping it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point as to 1RR. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you extend the protection to at least two weeks, to encourage our IP editors to stay away from vandalising? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Paul Benjamin Austin. We always try to make the degree of protection be proportionate to the length and seriousness of the problem. In this case, there had been only a few disputed edits and only in the past few days, so I gave it a relatively short protection. If problems resume after it expires, we can look at it again. I see that you did add some wording to the link to explain why you think it is relevant, and that is helpful - but if including it continues to be controversial, I would hope that you and User:Farolif would lay out your reasoning on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't care much about whether the reference to Judith Barsi is included, I was just including a possible reason why that editor had added her. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It was me who added the 'See also' item about Barsi. The deletions were done by the dual-IP editor who left a negative message on my talk page last night, then received a separate warning for it (User talk:47.148.147.81). I agree with Paul's suggestion to extend the protection at this time. Farolif (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

We do not protect proactively. Let's wait and see what happens when the protection expires. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. If there are any additional inappropriate edits to your talk page, the page can be protected. Let me know if it happens again. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

While you're at it, could you have a look at the edits that immediately precede your recent restoration of content in Russian interference? This appears to be a Single Purpose Account and the individual edits don't appear to sustain due weight or NPOV. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, it is wildly inappropriate for you to call Axxxion a WP:SPA—Axxxion has made over 6,000 edits since 2009 to a vast range of articles, thus your comment here is little more than an inaccurate insult. Please review WP:AGF and WP:NPA. You should also be more careful with your offhand references to "Russian edits"; while I am sure that that is merely your shorthand for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, in light of a recent incident in which you were criticized by several editors for heavily implying that JFG may be a "Russian troll" (and your refusal to apologize to JFG after Objective3000 urged you to do so, stating "I was uncomfortable with your attachment of JFG to some sort of conspiracy"), cavaliar allusions to "Russians" or even "Russian edits" could easily be misinterpreted. After all, while not an WP:SPA, Axxxion clearly is interested in several Russia–related topics. Thanks for your consideration,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It's been a week since you move-protected that article, and it looks like only DrMargi wants things at the current title. Me, Jmj, PhilipTerryGraham and SuperNintendoChalmers want it as both 2024 and 2028; two IPs want it at 2028 only. I'd have to say consensus is in favor of 2024 and 2028. Would you be kind enough to make the move? pbp 01:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Purple, the move protection expired yesterday. The title should be decided on, and implemented, by the regular users at the article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If you actually take a look at my contribs, you'll notice I swear a lot less when I'm getting annoyed. A lot. For instance, I dare you to find a swear word in this comment.

Your claim about it being a diatribe is completely and obviously wrong: I literally encouraged Thuc to stop using a poor argument (and explained what was wrong with it) to refute a stance I'd explicitly stated multiple times that I wasn't taking by suggesting that they were more than capable of using a better argument. When I explain something multiple times to a person, I expect them to understand it. I assumed Thuc got, and wasn't seriously incapable of coming up with something better, and explicitly said so in order to frame my judgements as being judgements of the argument, not the editor. Which, I've been given to understand, is something we're actively encouraged to do around here.

Now, if you want to critique my word choice and say I could have said it better without using charged words like "idiot" and "moronic", that's a fair point. But don't tell me it was a diatribe just because you couldn't be bothered to look past my choice of words to the actual meaning they conveyed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I said what I said and I stand by it. I haven't seen this kind of thing from you before so I assume it was an aberration. (Hint: yes, using words like "idiot and "moronic" does tend to distract from the meaning you are trying to convey.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I would concur with what GoldenRing said: "Tone it down." --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think he directed that equally at Thuc and Darouet, unless I missed part of the festivities there. When editors shop to Admins instead of an open forum like AE where a broad consensus can be achieved, it always feels a bit itchy to me. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Look again. It was specifically directed to Pants, followed by a general "go away" comment addressed to "the rest of you" (which I believe included you, SPECIFICO). --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Did I say it didn't include me? Oh. Did I go back for another helping of snark and recrimination against the innocent Admin? Oh. These things need to go to the AE venue, not under the radar to cherrypick Admins. Otherwise, why have WP noticeboards? Of course, if more Admins patrolled like in the good old daze... SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that 1RR applies at the dismissal article. You appear to have transgressed it:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_James_Comey&type=revision&diff=794710066&oldid=794709486

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_James_Comey&type=revision&diff=794708149&oldid=794706498

If you agree that 1RR has been violated, you can easily remedy the situation by reverting one of these edits. Thanks. If you decide to revert the second one, then I can edit to reflect that it was under his tenure as we discussed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Um, yes, I reverted your addition at 17:16 on August 9, and I made some edits (slight changes in wording, but OK, call it a revert) at 17:29 on August 9, ten minutes later. 1RR, like WP:3RR, defines a revert as "An edit or a series of consecutive edits". That was a series of consecutive edits. So, no, there was no violation. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, there was an intervening edit by someone other than yourself, between the two diffs identified above. You think "consecutive" means "consecutive edits by yourself only"? I'm trying to be nice here, by letting you fix this. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

IMO "consecutive edits" means edits during a single editing session. Well, looking again I am mistaken about that; the rule says "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I think that's kind of stupid for an actively edited article like this (does that mean you have to keep interrupting yourself to check the history? Does that mean that as long as you are the only editor doing anything you can keep reverting all day long?) but I will revert the second edit. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

If you get the rule changed, I'd be glad to follow whatever the new rule is (provided it doesn't require self-immolation!). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you offered to restore the edits I reverted, but I don't think you can. You made several reverts yourself on August 9, at 3:05 and then as recently 15:36. (There were no intervening edits so you were OK to make two reverts 12 hours apart; see why I say the rule is stupid?) But it looks to me like you've got to wait. Live by the rules, die by the rules. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, you reverted the First of the two edits listed above (they are not in chronological order). If you had reverted the second, then I would be entitled to further edit what I myself wrote. Got it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I made my first reversion at 17:16. That was the one where I removed your added phrase that I objected to. That reversion stands. I intended for that undiscussed addition to be removed from the lede, and IMO it should not be restored until consensus is reached at the talk page. I self-reverted the slight tweaks I made to the article body at 17:28 and 17:29, after an intervening edit had rendered them technically invalid. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

So let's close this discussion now? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Looks like we are both forbidden from changing anything in the article except what we added ourselves. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Good morning! Hope you enjoyed your holidays, for Indian cellphone spam is back to haunt you :) Could you please semi the following four, which have just been hit: Sharda University, Swami Rama Himalayan University, KIIT School of Technology, C. V. Raman College of Engineering, Bhubaneshwar. Thank you! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Interesting - the first three had not been hit before, or at least not enough to attract protection. I have this horrible feeling that they are never going to run out of Indian universities to spam. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/794950317

Noted. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I forgot to sign. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the pie. (Apple, I hope!) --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Here [4] SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Read it all. Don't know any more than I did before. --MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It was, disappointingly not resolved there. I think the big picture point is that the language in WP:3RR and WP:1RR, while it is very strict, does provide a simple bright-line test that can be applied without getting into any content disputes or nuances unknown to the editors and admins who work the AN boards. Yes, sometimes an edit may truly be a copyedit or a revision of longstanding content, but there's no harm waiting a few hours to make such edits. Are some "good" edits caught as false positives in some sense? Perhaps. But the same is true under any purely behavioral definition of such a rule. But the alternative is to open the door to what we see today -- forum shopping, Admin-shopping for one or the other interpretation, and tenuous or disingenuous claims that this or that edit is a copy edit improvement when it is instead an insinuation of some new POV meaning into the text. This is a big problem for so basic a definition not to have been addressed in a way that everyone understands and accepts. I hope you'll not give this one bit of thought until you're back from holiday. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You again?! [5] :D

Ok, welcome back. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I could leave again, if you prefer. 0;-D But there'd be no point - the eclipse is over. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Where were you? We traveled 400 miles to the totality but it was obscured by clouds. The darkness was cool though, and it was an excuse for a small family gathering. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

We had planned to view it from Alliance, Nebraska - but noticed a few days ahead of time the forecast for thunderstorms there, so went to Douglas, Wyoming instead. Found a beautiful state park a few miles out of town. Open fields, plentiful parking, no crowds, beautiful view of the complete corona just like the pictures in the books, 11-year-old relative dancing and literally screaming for joy at the sight - all was great except for the 10-hour traffic jam trying to get out of there. I'm told the population of Wyoming tripled for that day, then they all tried to leave at the same time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad that worked out for you. Campground at a lake north of Kansas City, Missouri. In a rented monster RV that we (I) drove that 800 miles round trip. There must be something on the web by now that shows at a glance how much was visible along the entire path of totality. Maybe I'll find the time to go look for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

Sorry to bother you with this nonsense. You have been involved in the relevant discussions, and I don't know who else to ask. I don't know if you saw the notices on my talk page, but it's difficult for me to have a gay time here with certain things hanging over me. A while ago I said I might write an essay, and I'm finally getting around to doing so (it's not finished yet), but I fear it might backfire and have the opposite effect to what was intended. I've tried to word it in a neutral and non-accusatory way, but have a queer feeling that there's no such thing as being careful enough here (I don't want to give names or point fingers). Do I appear rude or offensive anywhere? Have I inadvertently committed a BLP violation or made a personal attack? (I can't provide links without revealing names, which I don't want to do for obvious reasons) Have I written a load of drivel? Was this a bad idea in the first place? I cannot shake off the feeling someone will look at this and decide I'm throwing my toys out of my pram. And that probably will be the last straw for me. Nor would it be the first time my naïveté caused me trouble.

Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam, thanks for the note. I think you know what my advice is going to be - what I have been saying consistently for months now: Let A7 go. Let speedy tagging go. A7 may be imperfect, but stop trying to fix it. That issue has brought you nothing but grief and frustration. Your talk page used to be full of people yelling at you and arguing with you about speedy tags. Your talk page now is full of collaboration and compliments. Enjoy that. Clearly what you are doing now is working - helping the encyclopedia and hopefully giving you satisfaction. Keep doing that. Reviving the A7 arguments is likely to bring back the hassles that brought you to the brink of quitting so many times. I'm sure you felt some satisfaction, some catharsis in writing this essay - spelling out once again how you interpret A7 and how upset it makes you to see people not taking its criteria as literally as you do. But don't try to make any more of it than that.

To answer your specific questions: No, the essay is not neutral and doesn't try to be. (You could retitle it something like "problems with A7" instead of "Why I hate A7" if you are trying for neutrality. But it doesn't have to be neutral; it's a personal essay.) You have not given names or pointed fingers. You do not appear rude or offensive. You have not accused anyone personally or committed any BLP violations (anyhow BLP refers to articles about people; you meant to say NPA). It's not a load of drivel. But frankly, yes, it was probably a bad idea in the first place. I don't know "what you intended" in writing this essay, except to get it off your chest, but it very well could backfire depending on what you do with it.

The essay is in userspace and you are certainly free to express your feelings there. As long as you just let it stand as an expression of your feelings, and you don't try to use it in any way to go back to the CSD wars that made your life so unpleasant, I think you could keep it if you like. But I strongly advise you against calling attention to it, or trying to get other people's feedback on it, or worse yet using it as a rough draft for an attempt to get A7 rewritten or clarified. That is an issue that has caused nothing but trouble for you. Don't borrow trouble. Don't go there.

You asked my opinion, and I have always given it to you in complete frankness. The above advice does not in any way take away from the fact that I like you and always have. I really, really don't want you to go back to the frustration and unhappiness that this issue has always brought you in the past. I want to see you continue to do productive work and get praised for it, as seems to be the case nowadays. And I want to see the "feeling discouraged" and "considering retirement" banners permanently gone from your page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just that I can avoid A7 like the plague and pretend it doesn't exist, but that doesn't change the fact that it does exist, and is all around me. Someone might also look at it and simply give their feedback, and it would probably not be the sort I want to hear. As for BLP violations, I thought BLP policy applied to every page? (that said, I suppose my user page is full of BLP violations: I'm 27; I'm asexual; I play Dungeon Keeper; I play Theme Hospital etc. None of that's sourced.) I also suppose that perhaps it shouldn't be neutral, as it's hard to effectively express if it was (that said, perhaps you're right about the title. I suppose it drew too much inspiration from Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, which is a rather different essay. The combination of the title and content could be seen as an attack, even if neither are independently.). I also mention bullying. Although "I have been bullied" is different to "X editor bullied me", some may see it as an accusation (albeit an implicit one) without evidence, and therefore a personal attack, even though I mention no names. On reflexion, I suppose the purpose is because my tuppence needs to be said somewhere, and of course the "safest" place is in my userspace (my other essay is also strictly speaking my 2p, but that's about a slightly different (although closely related) matter). As for writing the encyclopaedia, I have outstanding GANs, and GA and FA targets, but even if I meet them all (which I probably won't  ), would that give me any joy? It should, but it's happened many times before so the novelty and satisfaction are starting to wear off, and past events may come back to haunt me. I fear that will never wear off. Adam9007 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess NPA could be construed as equivalent to BLP, because "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space." So relax, your userpage is in the clear! 0;-D And your essay doesn't make any personal attacks that I can see, although you do have some sections that are clearly attempts to revive an old argument where you are sure you were right and the other person was wrong. A natural human urge, but generally not very constructive. However, it's unlikely that the other person will read your essay, recognize themselves, and take offense. As you said, you are entitled to have your say, and your userspace is the perfect place to do it. As long as you let it go at that - and don't try to use it to renew the battles.

I wish I knew (I wish YOU knew) why you are so drawn to this subject, which has caused you so much stress. And I'm sorry to hear that you are already at the point of been-there-done-that-ho-hum with GA and even FA. Really? If so, why not create a few more new articles? That always gives me a great feeling of satisfaction (and sadly I am doing less new article creation since becoming an admin - probably no more than two or three this year). Or find rescuable articles and fix them; I rescued several from PROD and CSD, just yesterday. Note that "rescuing" doesn't mean just removing the tag or (in my case) declining the PROD/CSD; it means improving and referencing the article to the point where everybody recognizes it as meeting WP criteria (for example, proving that a person is a member of a legislature, or that a "populated place" actually exists). Definitively rescuing something is highly satisfying. I guess what I am saying is, look for ways to enjoy improving Wikipedia that don't involve speedy tagging! --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I do get satisfaction from GAs (don't know about FAs as I've never got an article to that level yet), but it's not quite the same as the first few times. I mean, all that really happens is there's a nice badge on the page, and I put a record of it on my user page. Before long, I'm back to my previous gaiety and wondering what to do next. I like succeeding where others have failed (such as this  ), which is why MediEvil is a FA target of mine, though I dare say the satisfaction won't be as much as, say, Ridge Racer Revolution (not that that's likely to be a FA  ), which I had got to GA all the way from stub. I do create articles, but they take forever to get reviewed (there's around 5 month gap between the creation of Dungeon Keeper (2014 video game) and it being marked as reviewed!), and I'm waiting for 2 of my articles to be reviewed. I also generally write about subjects I'm at least somewhat familiar with, and I can't think of many (one, but with the level of sourcing I currently have, it's possible it won't survive an AfD. I need to wait and see what happens to my current two outstanding ones first) that don't already have articles off the top of my head. Another problem is finding the time to do it: I often find that creating or expanding an article takes all day, if not longer, even if I have planned it beforehand. Same with posting these comments (albeit they don't quite take "all day"). It's also not often I find something I'm knowledgeable enough in to rescue. Adam9007 (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

RE: It's also not often I find something I'm knowledgeable enough in to rescue. Well, that's the beauty of Wikipedia: you don't have to be knowledgeable about a subject to rescue its article. What do I know about Indian villages, or members of the state assembly of Jammu and Kasmir? Pretty much nothing, but I know how to do a Google search (also known as WP:BEFORE). Those are still stubs and they are not beautiful, but they meet WP criteria for being here. And thanks for cleaning up after me at Vatnik (slang). See, I bet you didn't know anything about that meme either - but you knew enough to search for and find better sources!

Anyhow, you wrote your essay and you can keep polishing it. People who lurk your page or mine can read it and understand where you are coming from. (Well, they can if you correct the link here!) My advice is simply, let it go at that - don't promote it, don't follow up with attempts to improve A7, and do find things that you enjoy doing and have time for. Sorry to hear you are still having to wait for your articles to be reviewed. Write another dozen or so articles, and I (or anyone) can give you autopatrolled status. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

you don't have to be knowledgeable about a subject to rescue its article Now I come to think of it, I suppose that, for my GAs, I wasn't that knowledgeable about the subject when I set out to make them GAs: it wasn't until I obtained the sources that I became familiar with the games' development and reception. And you're right: I'd never heard of that meme until I came across it here. Maybe I'm better at searching than I thought? On another website, I gained something of a reputation for using Google (as well as their own search functions) to find shedload after shedload after shedload of spam that nobody knew was there, and much of it had been there for years (maybe I ought to get back to that sometime?). Shame the same technique won't work here  . As for rescuing articles, I suppose the reason I'm hesitant to rescue articles is because I'm afraid they'll be deleted before I manage to do anything, so my efforts would have been in vain. Adam9007 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)