User talk:MelanieN/Archive 48

@MelanieN (talk) Since I am not an Administrator is it possible for you to create an article for me that you block this person's name? [[1]] How can I send it to you for you if this article of the person is Wikipedia worthy? Wiki Gainz (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Wiki Gainz. Sorry, but no. You should stop trying to write an article about this person. He does not meet our requirements for having an article, which are listed here and here. He would either have to be a professional athlete in the highest level of his sport, or else to have received a lot of coverage in sources like news articles. Articles about him have been deleted multiple times, under the names Michael James Tamondong, Michael J Tamondong, and MJ Tamondong. All these names have now been “locked” to prevent articles from being written, since he does not qualify to have an article here. Please stop trying. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the same ip guy is back while operating under various other ips accounts and a google serasch of those ip addresses show the guy is from russia like the other ip account he is starting to revert my edits on these three wiki pages the first two ones he reverts my references in which he puts the reference which links to an interactive map of the region tatarstan which also has a large russian population so it should not be used as refering to individual tatars that are mostly muslims unlike russians that are mostly christian or atheist and in the irreligion in turkey wiki page the ip is not targeting my deism entry but the beginning section that is linked to a article made in turkey so could you please add protection onto these pages so that ips don't keep messing with the wiki page.Arsi786

Looks like it's been taken care of. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Beg pardon as I don't know you, but can tell me how to hat a part of conversation on a talk page that is disruptive? Bodding (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Bodding - Typically, you would use {{hat|result=Caption goes here, then sign}} at the top of the discussion, then {{hab}} at the bottom. See Template:Hat for more information. SQL^{Query me!} 05:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Bodding (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

pp has expired & ip vandal has reverted [flow hive] again. Not sure what to do next. Clappingsimon (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Clappingsimon (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have extended the protection. Looking at the article, I am concerned about the “criticisms” section. The criticisms seem to be poorly sourced, and the rebuttals to the criticism are not sourced at all. I removed one unsourced sentence that was pure puffery. Since you have an interest in this article, can you see about either fixing the sourcing or deleting the claims/counterclaims? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You may want to keep an eye on this one – an IP editor and another editor have been ignoring the AfD result and have been recreating the article (with basically no meaningful changes from the deleted/redirected version). To be safe, I've added an {{Old AfD}} tag to the Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. I've locked it. Let me know if you see any more of these. This guy and his socks are awfully persistent. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Melanie. You semi-protected Silk Way Airlines for a month because of sockpuppetry. Checking through the history I have found that the problem has been going on since at least as far back as November 2017, with new sockpuppets coming up after old ones were blocked. It therefore seems to me that a one month block is unlikely to make much impact: someone who has been edit-warring with numerous socks for that long won't be put off by a month's break, especially since the article has already been protected five times during that period, including once for two months, and the problem has not diminished. For that reason I have increased the protection to six months. Please let me know if you think I was wrong. I also see that in December another administrator imposed extended confirmed protection, saying in the protection log "disruptive users are autoconfirmed. semi does nothing", so we may have to go back there, but I am leaving it at semi for now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JamesBWatson, I'm good with that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I can't think of a time when that use is ever justified. 99.999% of the time they're disruptive. Only specific placement, accompanied by talk page explanations, should be allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

See my comment on the subject at WP:AE. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've read them. I'm really wondering if we should get policy/guideline changed to deprecate this practice completely? I've never seen it serve any good purpose. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This page (Steve Marshall, Writer) was put up years ago when I was attempting to promote my career. It is a compendium of my professional accomplishments. I was since notified that Wikipedia frowned on autobiographical pages but I didn't know what to do about it. Anyway, the page is devoted solely to my career but in the wake of a highly embarrassing event in my life, someone saw fit to add it to the page. When I discovered this, I edited the material out and it stayed gone for nearly two years before mysteriously re-appearing. I have made several attempts to remove that information that have been labeled "vandalism." I am now retired and have no reason to have this page exist any longer, certainly not at the cost of having embarrassing information as a part of it. How do I go about having the page removed altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.248.62 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

{Cross-posted at User talk:Meters.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've posted this at AFD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Marshall (writer). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this, folks! I love my stalkers! --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed this removal and your "trivia" comment. When massive media attention is triggered, it ceases to be "trivia". That jacket choice was no "accident", and it garnered quite a bit of attention, and of an unfortunate type which was triggered by that choice. The media was gaslighted. This article is rather insightful:

• Journalist Liz Plank Believes the Media Was Baited by Melania Trump's Zara Jacket. "The FLOTUS office saying they're confused about why the media is covering the jacket is gaslighting 101."

This fits the gaslighting pattern we've been seeing from the White House. None of this happens by "accident". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, BR. I stand by my deletion, although you are welcome to take it up at the talk page if you want. What are you proposing - that we report on the jacket and then give equal coverage to a couple of conspiracy-theory editorials about it? (Basically Liz Plank [2] and Chris Cillizza.[3]) IMO we should simply ignore it. To me it is irrelevant whether she wore the jacket innocently/naively, or because she wanted to send a message that she really DOESN’T care, or as a kind of bait for the media. (If that was the idea, it was a dumb one; she got a lot more of the effluent on her than the media did.) Why she wore it is speculation, and the fact that she wore it is trivia - a flash in the pan, unworthy of the silly, massive, (but short lived) coverage it got. And in fact if we mention it in the article, aren’t we being gaslighted too? --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

We'd be victims of it. The whole charade operates on "government by chaos", IOW using confusion, distraction, and lies, all from Putin's playbook. We can't document every part of it, but every seemingly trivial "event" is part of the whole:

• Is Trump’s Chaos Tornado a Move From the Kremlin’s Playbook? It’s terrifying to think that the Trump administration is simply winging it, in a swirl of lies, contradictions, and Twitter rants. A scarier possibility is that there is, in fact, a plan, taken straight from Putin 101.
• Controlling Chaos: How Russia manages its political war in Europe
• Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin: Global rivals to be King of Chaos
• What Putin Really Wants. Russia's strongman president has many Americans convinced of his manipulative genius. He's really just a gambler who won big.
• Trump Is Already Wagging The Dog. The 1997 film was about inventing distraction, not starting an actual war.
• Democrats are the last hope against Trump-era chaos and lies: Republican strategist. The press is overwhelmed by Trump's chaos and lies, making Democrats the last line of defense. I'm a Republican begging them to step up. Nothing else matters if they don't.

Then factor in what the dossier informs us about Putin's reasons for choosing Trump. It all makes sense. They aren't "rivals in chaos", but rather, Trump is creating the chaos Putin knew he'd create, and that suits Putin just fine. Chaos in the Middle East, Europe, and the USA, all serves him well. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I take an intermediate stance here. I do not think that we should include any content suggesting that she wore the jacket as an elaborate chess move from Putin's playbook. On the other hand, it is indisputable that she chose to wear that particular inexpensive jacket that contained a provocative message in the context of that particular trip, and that simple fact was covered by many, many reliable sources from a broad international spectrum. I cannot see how mentioning that fact, referenced to one or two high quality mainstream news sources, and perhaps a high quality fashion source, would be anything other than an improvement to her biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful input. I see there is a discussion now at Talk:Melania Trump so we really should move our comments there. --MelanieN (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this belongs there. Right now it's a subject of discussion on This Week, with George Stephanopoulos, with comments that it was a deliberate message and notable deviation from normal practice for Melania (which says a lot), used like a sandwich board, but with uncertainty as to whom it was directed. It's a very notable event, and it should be mentioned, with some of the commentary and opinions. A paragraph should do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Truly notable events per Wikipedia policy are not determined by whether or not George Stephanopoulos talks about it on his Sunday morning show. Notability of an event in a case such as this is characterized by whether or not inclusion of the event will stand the test of time. After today's rehashing of it on the Sunday shows, it will end up yet another nothingburger. As I already noted at the article talkpage: WP:FART. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

...crazy happenings over the past few days, like me using the word "hell" in a comment, had to be the result of a crazy reason, so here it is. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

As Gilda Radner used to say, "It's always something." 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Not that there's anything wrong with that...^{Atsme📞📧} 16:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)