User talk:MelanieN/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions about User:MelanieN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Hi

My internet is down and I haven't been able to get to email, but will be in touch when it's repaired tomorrow. —CaroleHenson (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Carole. No rush. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Coatracking?

Office_of_Victims_of_Immigration_Crime_Engagement The idea for VOICE came from Maria Espinoza, director of the Remembrance Project, an anti-illegal immigration organization with ties to white nationalist groups,[11][12] .... [13] Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which according to the SPLC "is known to regularly circulate the writings of white nationalists and even some holocaust deniers"[14] I'd argue this is not representative of how these guys are characterized when they're quoted in media RSs and this is WP:COATRACK, which the other editor denies. What is policy? NPalgan2 (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Umm, coatrack from what? The subject seems to be notable enough for a standalone article, if that's what you mean. As for Espinoza and Krikorian, I see that those are being discussed on the talk page and that is the proper place for such discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah but I'm unclear on the policy. Suppose someone wrote in the Jeremy Corbyn article "Tony Blair,who launched the Iraq war which killed hundreds of thousands of people, gave a speech denouncing Corbyn's defense policy..." There are articles about Blair and Iraq, and the Iraq war is related to UK defence policy, but suppose the sources reporting on the hypothetical Blair speech don't mention the Iraq War. Is this contravening WP? NPalgan2 (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey

Hopefully things will get more mellow at the Trump article. I appreciate your moderating influence there, but when things seem to be going awry I will say so. While trying to keep my internet gibberish under control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Good note

I stumbled into a user's talk page and saw this message you dropped there last month. I think it's one of the better "here's-what-you-did-and-why-it-should-stop" warnings I've seen at Wikipedia. Good job. Have a nice day. --EEMIV (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the day-brightener! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the template text must have been reading Orwell. "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date." Yeah, you're really going to get that note if you're working on improving a BLP hardly anyone cares about. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Neil, we really need to come up with an icon that identifies sarcasm. I can picture some overly-serious person, parsing your statement, trying to figure out why you said that particular template is likely to be given to someone laboring over an obscure BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Why does it state that at the top? Surely the point of the notice is to notify people that their editing of a controversial article, subject to discretionary sanctions, is not in line with the policy? Perhaps it does need to be omitted. After all, I do not see this notice appearing on the talk pages of those who edit DS articles constructively. Patient Zero^talk 12:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it's a way to give the information without getting into arguments about what they did and why it was or wasn't wrong. You are both right, this warning is not generally given to people whose editing has all been innocent and compliant with the guideline. But the "I don't mean anything by it" sentence may be a way to keep the recipient from getting defensive and rejecting the information. (In my experience they usually delete it anyhow.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

we really need to come up with an icon that identifies sarcasm - you mean Template:FBDB (frequently deployed on User talk:EEng, a talk page which can allegedly be seen from space....) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Melanie. And yeah, FBDB's probably the closest we've got :-) I'd like to know EEng's rationale behind not archiving, though. I can't read his TP on my phone at all - it just reloads the page constantly! Patient Zero^talk 14:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A7 and hospitals

Can you refresh my memory - I seem to recall from discussions that British NHS hospitals usually cleared A7, but other ones elsewhere did not. The reason I ask is a bunch of one line hospital stubs have just turned up at CAT:CSD : San Ignacio Hospital (Belize), Punta Gorda Hospital, Orange Walk Hospital and Corozal Hospital. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall such a discussion, sorry. You were thinking that being a national hospital is automatically a claim of significance? I wouldn't have thought so, but I haven't been very tuned in to CSD discussions. You might ask User:SoWhy, he's the A7 guru. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I've been pinged, I'll chime in real quick: I'd say larger hospitals are usually not eligible for A7, since some coverage is bound to exist. As for smaller ones, I see no reason to delete articles that can be merged into / redirected to the articles about the town they are in, per WP:ATD, so A7 does not apply for this reason. That said, I usually wouldn't consider A7 to be appropriate for any article that has existed for a long time (those articles seem to be as old as eight years). Regards So Why 14:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: @SoWhy: @MelanieN: I saw this and had a hunch there was a discussion Ritchie described, so I checked the archives of WT:CSD but couldn't find anything about hospitals other than this discussion I started about whether they're buildings or organisations. Maybe I'm going senile?

Adam9007 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If being unable to remember and track down every discussion on Wikipedia is a sign of going senile, we are all doomed. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I sincerely hope I'm not going senile; I'm only 26! But as ~~everyone~~ (well, most people anyway) think I'm insane when it comes to A7, who knows? But I did have a strange feeling that Ritchie is right. Adam9007 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Anybody need their spirits lifted?

If so, click here: [1] Hint: A little girl gives a coin to a street musician and gets more than she bargained for. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Just wonderful M. The way my day has gone this could not be more "joy"ous. Many thanks for truly lifting my spirits. MarnetteD|Talk 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad for the lift (and thanks for the pun). I have found myself watching it over and over, since I discovered it a week or so ago, so I thought I would share it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Now why can't this video have millions of views instead of the insipid stuff filmed by YouTube "stars"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

For all I know maybe it does. It seems to have been copied to a lot of sites. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Original video has 72 million hits. And it should still have more. I always tear up inside when I hear that music. Pure joy indeed. Regards So Why 21:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's a version you will like, SoWhy; it was in Nürnberg. [2] This time a girl starts things off by playing a flute. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That's more like it! For months (years?) hearing that music would trigger an internal fist pump thanks to Peggle. Heh. From the article: "A study underwritten by PopCap at East Carolina University found that across 132 subjects, Peggle was found to increase their mood by 573% across all subjects, with a 45% reduction in depression." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Great. I love this one, too: Berlusconi's resignation. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

Ooh, that's kind of harsh! They set up outside his house and sang "Hallelujah" because he had resigned? That's mean... in a beautiful sort of way. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not his house, it's some... uh... important constitutional building or other, of great symbolic significance, where I think he was at the time. The Italians had been waiting for a long time to get rid of Berlusconi, with dwindling hope, for he clung on like a limpet. I remember there were conga lines in the square as well — a lot of extremely grown-up and proper-looking Italians forming conga lines as the music played on — an amazing sight. Now imagine a similar celebration in front of a building of similar importance across the Atlantic, on the occasion of some comparable future event. One can dream. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

[Yiddish accent] From your lips to God's ears! – Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's the Quirinal Palace! A building that has been home to popes, kings, and presidents. Neutrality^talk 03:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Bishonen must be thinking of 24 Sussex Drive.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The occasional bonus of being a (talk page stalker).:) Thanks. Objective3000 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Unwarranted Page Protection on Derrick Watson, and Possible Administrative Bias

This wall of text is duplicated at the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

First, in case I missed something, I would like to ask that you list the specific edits that you believe constituted "Persistent Vandalism". None of the previous revisions on the page mention anything about vandalism or the need to prevent persistent vandalism, so how did you conclude that the page needed to be protected from vandalism? There are a couple of comments that mention "biased commentary", but stating that "20,000 unauthorized immigrants live in Hawaii who are allowed to get driver licenses on the account of legal citizens under this judge" or that the Judge graduated from Harvard "the same year as President Obama" is not "biased commentary". Those are not opinions, they are statements of fact. Either the information is factual, or it is not, but it is certainly not "biased commentary". However, it would be rather biased to remove factual information from an article because that information conflicts with the editor's opinions and with the non-neutral political narrative they are attempting to create. It would also biased to protect a page in order solely to prevent factual information from being communicated to the public. I looked through a dozen or so edits, and I saw nothing that came anywhere near Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. Just because edits are controversial does not mean they amount to vandalism. Page protection must not be used as a means of censorship, of forcing one political party's perspective and sense of the facts pertaining to the page onto the page while silencing the factual statements of others, or worse yet, of using one's privileges as an administrator to take revenge against one's political opponents. The Judge's ruling was that the Executive Order was unconstitutional, on the basis that it violated Muslims' religious freedom, but there are probably many other Judges and tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans, not to mention an Attorney General and a sitting U.S. President, who believe that this Judge violated the Constitution by using his Judicial authority to prevent the President from exercising his constitutional powers, not because he made a law, or signed an executive order "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (the executive order is based on nationality, the high incidences of terrorism in those nations, and the fact that we are currently at war with groups within those nations, and that those nations have, in the past, been known to coalesce into empires, invade Europe, and massacre people on the basis of their religion; the travel restrictions affect Muslim majority countries because we are at war in those countries, because we have repeatedly been attacked by those nations ever since the Barbary Wars, and because many people within those countries want the United States government to be overthrown by force and replaced with a Muslim government that would prohibit the free exercise of all non-Muslim religions, as it is in their countries, not because Trump is attempting to establish a state religion within the United States, which is what the 1st Amendment was designed to prevent). There is a growing perspective that this Judge and numerous others in the United States seem to be making their Judicial rulings on the basis of their political affiliations and their political ideology. If there is any truth in that very serious allegation, or even if that allegation is merely believed by a significant portion of the public and the government, then the belief that Judges are abusing their power and violating the same Constitution that they claim to be upholding will inevitably result in a constitutional crisis unlike anything the United States has ever experienced. The next step in this crisis might be the arrest of these Judges on the grounds that they have violated the Constitution, jeopardized our national security, and aided our enemies, which might lead to retaliatory actions by the other party. Ultimately, this is how civil wars begin, nations are torn apart, and democracies become empires. Obviously, it is better to resolve this issue through dialogue if possible, but "page protection", censorship, and divisive and deceptive media and political narratives are making such dialogue impossible, which considerably increases the risk that this issue will be resolved through force, as such issues have been resolved more often than not throughout history. The stakes are quite high. I hope you understand that. All of the facts that pertain to this Judge's ruling, its constitutionality, and its implications for the United States and the world must be permitted to be posted, not just the facts that either support or contradict one particular political party's agenda. If the Wikipedia page on this Judge is going to note the Judge's ruling and his rational for that ruling, then that page must also note this brewing Constitutional crisis, the Constitutional provisions which prohibit un-elected Judges from engaging in partisan politics to obstruct the other two democratically elected branches of government from exercising their lawful powers, and the President's justification for the Executive Order. In other words, this page must "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far AS POSSIBLE, without editorial bias, ALL of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic," in order for this page to comply with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Therefore, I must ask that you remove the page protection from this page so that all of the relevant facts pertaining to this page may come to light. If there is vandalism that has occurred or that may occur in the future, then you should remove the vandalism and punish the vandals (without showing any bias for one political party over another whatsoever). You may be politically biased as a private citizen, but not as a Wikipedia Administrator. Do not punish the whole world, your nation, and everyone who would like to either read or edit this page just because one or two people decided to vandalize it (an allegation you've made which I've found no evidence of), and absolutely do not use your administrative privileges to push a certain political narrative while silencing others who might furnish facts that disprove or contradict the political narrative of the party you identify with (an unfortunate, unjust, abusive and very damaging practice that is becoming increasingly common among Wikipedia Admins). Please also provide a detailed explanation for your decision to protect this page in the first place. 24.119.20.133 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

[3], [4], [5] as examples. Good protect. Call it disruptive editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I see the same wall of text was copied onto the article's talk page, so I will hat it here to keep it from cluttering up my page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Kudos

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your completely valid, common-sense protection of Derrick Watson and your calm response to the subsequent talk page bludgeoning. Thank you. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar and the support, Ponyo. It will be interesting to see if they actually do take it to the next level. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Given the history of tendentiousness on display here, I would assume it is not the last you will hear from them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I assume that as well. It wouldn't be my first bogus ANI complaint and won't be my last. I'm sure you can say the same; this kind of thing comes with the territory. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. That is quite a record. Amazing that they were allowed to appeal and appeal before the talk page access was finally blocked. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked for one year. The NLT block last August would have been an indef if it was a registered editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Aww, shucks - no bogus ANI complaint? I was kind of looking forward to it. 0;-D Seriously, thanks. This kind of thing doesn't really benefit Wikipedia any. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Subject matters that are in the news, that are "hot", always draw interest from many new editors...and not always with the best of results. I support a locked door. If they want to "get in" they should join. Buster Seven Talk 23:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've developed the habit, when a news story like this one breaks, to immediately take a look at the pages of relevant people. About half the time I find that they are under attack from all sides ("this person is a hero", "this person is a traitor"). Amazing how quickly things calm down with a little protection. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Bowling Green

Let's talk sensibly out of the limelight. I see you proposed a Merge that was voted down. That was a very sensible idea, and I'd have voted for it. Let me clarify an underlying detail about the convictions of the Bowling Green terrorists. Although the FBI had fingerprint evidence and statements from the accused, they could not tie them to a specific incident resulting in death of a soldier in Iraq. Their convictions and life sentences were based on fingerprints on unexploded devices, confessions and bragging about killing soldiers, and (what some people call a frameup) attempts at purchase and delivery to Iraq of contraband for terrorist activities. Although they got life sentences, they actually were never convicted of killing anyone, only the intent with strong suspicion they had caused deaths.

So this becomes a complicated case from the get go. Then when you factor in they were under two years surveillance of a FISA wiretap before arrest, and another two years before convictions and some national reporting (lmited of course because of the evidence gathered under FISA), you can well understand why Conway prefaced her remarks twice with "I bet no one ever heard" and "becsuse it wasn't covered".

I'm with you - the basic story needs to be preserved. It's part of the ongoing interest among the public about FISA rules and applications, and government officials dual responsibility of both informing the public and maintaining secrecy of the FISA program. So I'm asking you to look at a wider context other than the partisan position that Kellyanne Conway is an idiot. And if she's replaced would probably be replaced with a bigger idiot. Nobs01 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nobs01, and thanks for the note. It's true I did propose a merge, very early in the article's history before it became clear what a notable story it was. But by the time the discussion was closed, the massive and sustained coverage made it clear this was a big, notable deal, and I would have voted against my own merge proposal, although I neglected to say so.

And we will not be digging deeply into the (not very notable) earlier story about the two terrorists, because they are not what this article is about. The story here is what Conway said; it is only incidentally about the earlier arrest of terrorists, and there is no need to go into great detail about them, or FISA, or what they were convicted of compared to what they did or didn't do. Our only obligation to make sure that what we do say about them is accurate. On that matter we are following the approach and depth of coverage from Reliable Sources, as we are required to do.

By the way I really can't fathom why you keep claiming she was not talking about something she believed was an actual incident. I explained my reasoning at the AfD discussion. To you I will say: that argument is getting you nowhere, and you need to drop it and find some actual policy-based reason for wanting the article deleted. "She meant something other than what she said" and "there is an inappropriate link in the article" are not going to do it.

As for Conway herself (since we are not representing Wikipedia here and I can say what I think): I don't think she is an idiot, not at all. In fact I think she is one of the smartest and most capable people in Trump's inner circle. In this case she is getting blamed for the misstatement but I suspect the real fault lies with whoever briefed her about what to say. The comment, repeated verbatim in multiple venues, is obviously a prepared talking point, and whoever helped her to write it gave her the false impression that there had been actual attacks on soldiers in Bowling Green. She went public with that and is gallantly taking the heat for it without pointing a finger at whoever misinformed her. We can't say any of this in the article, this is just my impression. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a well thought out response. Here's why I believe the context of the actual case matters: nobody was killed, that can be specifically identified in the original arrest. That is what remains peculiar about this case as it's discussed among prosecutors. I'm not sure if there's been final rulings on their appeals, but they did receive life sentences. A life sentence on a terrorism charge in which nobody was killed may itself be a basis for it to be overturned, so this case provokes much discussion among law enforcement and national security experts. And yes, immigration reform advocates now, too. And I'm of a mind that Kellyanne Conway is aware of, or been part of these discussions. IOW, she knows nobody was killed in what she mistakenly described as a massacre, whereas she in all probability meant to say a massacre of soldiers in Iraq was prevented. I think that is a fair rendition of what happened, it just came out all backwards. Nobs01 (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's a generous interpretation for sure. IMO she is smart enough, and articulate enough, not to call something the Specific Named Locale Massacre if she knew there was no massacre, not even a single death, not even an attack, in that Specific Named Locale. I still think she was given bad information. (BTW I think only one of them received a life sentence; the other got something like 30 or 40 years because he cooperated with authorities. Amounts to the same thing of course.) "Nobody was killed" is also generous; it would be more accurate to say that no identified, named individual was killed (while leaving everyone, including the men themselves, in no doubt that people were killed). If the case provokes "much discussion" the discussion hasn't hit the mainstream press. The conviction of those two men remains non-notable, except for its connection to this notable boo-boo. Thanks for explaining your position. I still advise you that you need to find some better reason to argue for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and I really do appreciate you engaging with me. Yes, 100% I think you're correct about being briefed, but even there it's hard to blame the briefers because of the peculiar nature of this case. Government secrecy on sources and methods, i.e FISA, is why the case has been shielded from the press. And that's why a correct reading of underlying documents - the government press releases and a few national stories spread out over several years and the Bowling Green Daily News - is necessary. In all the sources, they struggle to come up with a name for the case because of the peculiar facts. Eventually, "Bowling Green terrorists" evolved by the Daily News after their convictions. "Bowling Green massacre", in all likelihood is a shorthand phrase that probably did not originate with Conway and was used by insiders - prosecutors and national security personal - with full access to the facts: (1) that they came to Bowling Green legally under immigration law; (2) that one bragged of killing soldiers in Iraq; (3) that they arranged for purchase and delivery of illegal weapons to Iraq with the intent to kill more soldiers; (4) that much of the evidence to produce a winnable conviction in court that will stand was gathered by secret means, FISA.

The convictions are for conspiracy, not for murder. The most preposterous supposition about this meme is that readers actually believe a White House counsellor thinks mass murder can be kept secret. And this at a time when there is widespread discussion on the need for, and the deniability aspects of, the White House in relation to evidence gathered by FISA. Nobs01 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The most preposterous supposition about this meme is that readers actually believe a White House counsellor thinks mass murder can be kept secret. With the current White House that's not preposterous at all; they clearly DO think that way. Trump himself claimed the press doesn't report, or underreports, terrorism attacks: "It’s gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that.”[6] And then Sean Spicer tried to support that claim with his infamous list of 78 attacks that supposedly "did not receive adequate attention from Western media sources: [7] The list was widely debunked [8] but the White House clearly believes that, in effect, "mass murder can be kept secret" by the dishonest press. And in effect that's what Conway say saying: this was an actual massacre that didn't get reported because, well, you know, the dishonest press. She certainly seemed to imply that it SHOULD have been reported more deeply than what it got. What it got was actually pretty routine for an arrest and trial that didn't involve any actual attacks in this country - not even a plot to carry out any domestic attacks. (And now you're doing it: "the case has been shielded from the press" indeed! It was a public trial, and it was reported to about the extent that would have been normal for such a case.)

As for your suggestion that "prosecutors and national security personal" used the term "Bowling Green massacre" to refer to the case, that stretches credibility way beyond the breaking point. If that was the case, why hasn't she called attention to that earlier usage, to get herself off the hook? Sorry. Law enforcement people call things what they are. No law enforcement or other "insider" would have used the term "Bowling Green massacre" to refer to a case where there was no massacre in Bowling Green, in fact no deaths at all, in fact not even a plot to carry out a massacre. They would have called it something like "the Bowling Green plot" or "the Bowling Green conspiracy". Or yes, maybe the "Bowling Green terrorists" - which is what she claimed she meant to say. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish I had more time to address your points directly cause I find this dialogue engaging and constructive, but with the focus on FISA right now, I'm being carried along with it. Please, as to why there was limited reporting on Bowling Green or 78 other alleged attacks, familiar yourself with the 2013 Department of Justice investigations of reporters for publishing leaked FISA information, which scared many reporters. I'm not saying this is good or bad.

FISA was developed for two reasons: (1) to prevent another rogue Plumbers unit from ever emerging as in Watergate to fix government leaks, and (2) to provide direct judicial oversight of covert activity rather than a potentially partisan congressional committee. While there is potential for abuse, this system seems to work but may need some tweeks and reforms now. This is wider context I'm asking you too look at, not just the partisan shenanigan's connected to a White House dimwit. Nobs01 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I'm not going to get down into the weeds about FISA. My only interest in the "Bowling Green terrorists" is in relation to this article, to which they are a side note. IMO there would have been ample reporting about the two terrorists if the press had found it worth while (i.e., interesting enough to their readers/viewers). They wouldn't have needed to say a word about FISA; it was a public trial. They could have covered it in great and even sensational depth, if there had been anything sensational about it - but there wasn't, so they didn't. (And it's simply not true that "there was limited reporting" on the "78 other alleged attacks". Please check Spicer's "list", and its debunking, before you accept that claim.) If you feel the case of these two men is so significant, I suggest you try your hand at writing an article about the case. It doesn't belong in the "Bowling Green massacre" article except peripherally. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This whole exercise had been constructive because I have collected a lot of information on the actual facts of the case - apart from the "noise" generated by 70,000 Google results or the 44 links in the article. We'll see today after what Director Comey decides to release regarding FISA wiretaps, but I'm certain it won't be much.

BTW, you may be interested in reading Matt Tiabbi's warning of the dangers of following after false information, as the Bowling Green massacre article does wholesale. "The press has to cover this subject. But it can't do it with glibness and excitement, laughing along to SNL routines, before it knows for sure what it's dealing with. Reporters should be scared to their marrow by this story. This is a high-wire act and it is a very long way down. " [9] Nobs01 (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nobs01: Well, that article is about a completely different subject. But I am puzzled by following after false information, as the Bowling Green massacre article does wholesale. Is there false information in the Bowling Green massacre article? If so, what? (Aside from your constantly repeated claim that she knew there wasn't any actual "massacre" when she said "Bowling Green massacre".) If there is false information in the article, let me know so I can fix it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

When you google "Bowling Green massacre" the number result is now a parody page devoid of any context of what Kellyanne Conway was invited onto the Hardball show to discuss. It reflects more on its creators than its intended target as an attack page. It is nothing more than an internet meme, and will always remain so. Should the page actually survive, three years, five years, ten years, it will say so in its opening sentence and categorization. Editors should recognize this fact. Nobs01 (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies

I've responded on my talk page, but frankly I had been under the impression that the aforementioned conversation was over, unless Drmies decided to continue it. But to be frank, I'm a little puzzled that the personal attacks against me on that page made no impression on you whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

As we agreed at your talk page: it's over. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong -- I know your concern is genuine and is appreciated. I just don't understand the foregoing, that's all. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I respect both of you. I hate to see friends tearing into each other. I don't know who deserved what, and let's not rehash it. Let's just move on. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, well if he wants to move on, I will move on. By the way, you deserve high praise for shepherding Melania Trump. I had given up on that. Coretheapple (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Minor technical note

Greetings MelanieN! When I archived the various threads about your namesake's libel suits, I had to de-indent the {{boxquote}}s to make the archive tags work properly. In the process of identifying the issue, I noticed that you sometimes used the   tag to force a line break. While this syntax is tolerated and rendered properly, it tends to confuse the highlighting algorithm in the Mediawiki text input box, so that the following markup is not properly handled. I would advise you to use the closed tag   to avoid such issues in the future. Kind regards, have a great week! — JFG ^talk 21:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, JFG. That was actually funny; we edit conflicted because I was trying to do the same thing at the same time. (You beat me.) I also discovered the problem with the boxquotes (for some reason just some of them, not all of them), and I solved it by removing the boxquotes and indenting instead. Sounds like you encountered a similar problem and solution.
I don't know anything about code so I have no idea what you are talking about. I do sometimes use to force a line break. I just tested and found that also works. You are saying I should use it instead? --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, just use  , it's that simple. — JFG ^talk 22:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you might know...

if Trumps tweet become an official government document? I seem to recall reading somewhere, early on, that some govt agency that keeps track of these kind of things was having a problem with Trump tweets that often are followed by a correction. As I recall the issue and problem was that someone, other than the President, was often innocently editing and changing them. It was causing some severe consternation in whatever the agency was....Office Of Records or some such. Much like a Spicer press briefing, I have a second question but it depends on the answer to the first. I tried Google, but I'm not asking the right question. Maybe you or one of your friendly stalkers will know. Buster Seven Talk 23:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no clue. But I believe he does his tweeting on his own, private, non-secure phone. Maybe that makes it private?

Well, here's an answer: [10] --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Need an opinion from someone uninvolved

Was this a stupid thing to do? Am I going completely and utterly insane? Adam9007 (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No, and no. I totally understand why you did this, although I can sympathize with the people saying "wrong venue" or "wrong approach". Look at it this way: you actually won this one. You listed it because you were wondering, half-afraid, how people would react. Would they say "yeah, delete it, he doesn't know what he's talking about"? Well - they didn't say that. Instead they encouraged you to keep it. Userspace essays are exactly for what you use yours for: to express an opinion about Wikipedia. If you thought people would reject yours - they didn't, so that's a win. I advise, don't worry about your "reputation" as much as you seem to. I think you have already found out, Wikipedia is not a good place to seek affirmation. Relax, keep your essay as it is, and enjoy your trout in good humor, maybe with a nice almond-butter sauce. Can I have some? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I do understand that advising you to "relax" or not to worry is like advising a bird not to sing. You can't help it. But there are ways you could maybe temper it, to make it less overwhelming to you. Go outside for a walk. Turn off the computer and listen to your favorite music. Find a garden and pull a few weeds. Sometimes just going through this kind of exercise, even if you don't feel like it, helps crank down the worry to a more tolerable level. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"Look at it this way: you actually won this one." - sorry, but no I didn't

: I shot myself in the foot, again. It's clear to me that Iridescent thinks it should be deleted, and that the keep votes were on a technicality. I think his response proves that his closure was not intended as humour, but as an WP:ASPERSION. What makes it worse is that he dragged my political views into it and used them against me. I mean, there's plenty of stuff on Ritchie333's user page I don't agree with, but it doesn't affect my relationship with him here because it's nothing to do with Wikipedia. The irony is that our views on A7 are (at least, roughly) the same. I shall explain myself further: I see a distinction between "I want this deleted" and "I think this should be deleted": thinking something should be deleted doesn't necessarily mean one wants it deleted. It could be that one has concluded it's causing problems and deletion was reluctant. That was the case here. As for my reputation, I think it's already dead

. If there's one thing I;ve learned form all of this, it's that common practice seems to trump the rules. For example, SoWhy thinks that we can get people to follow rules such as WP:ATD-R and G11's original intention. Those are just two of the rules that are often ignored/broken. I have tried to warn him that I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of him succeeding in that endeavour, for this is the feedback he'll probably get. As for my insistence that my views trump others', if I'm guilty of that, then, frankly, so are SoWhy and Ritchie333 with Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance, for common practice is that articles with only those claims are A7'ed. I can see that going to MfD in the near future (yes, I checked WP:MFD, and I can't see anything that says it shouldn't be, unless I missed something?). Adam9007 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wish you had asked someone if it would be a good idea to challenge Iridescent on their talk page. :-(

If there's one thing you learned from this: Yes, it could be phrased as "common practice seems to trump the rules". You say that in a disapproving tone, sounding like "how can anyone accept such a situation???" But in fact that kind of does express what goes on here. I guess the real problem, the one you have never come to grips with, may be Wikipedia's attitude toward rules, expressed in the fifth pillar. You are a person who wants for there to be rules, firm rules, strictly enforced. Wikipedia isn't like that. It operates by consensus, and even when a rule is written down, it is subject to consensus interpretation. Are you ever going to be able to accept this, do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the rules do exist for a reason, after all. They're not there for the sake of being there. It's just that, especially in the case of A7, they seem to change frequently without notice (WP:NOTINHERITED applies, then it doesn't. WP:ATD applies, then it doesn't. MD/CEO is a strong connexion with a subject, and then it isn't etc. No wonder I'm confused.), and it's already almost impossible to know what the consensus is because nobody has bothered to document it. I think that's the whole point of Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance, but even with it and its citations, I'm still being challenged. I could be wrong, but I think the spirit of the fifth pillar is basically to ignore the rules if they get in the way. The problem is that I see them being ignored when they're not getting in the way (e.g. WP:ATD-R never gets in the way as far as I can see, as any problematic content is still removed, and the resulting redirect can be of benefit and is almost, if not never, harmful). Adam9007 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No. The fifth pillar is not the same as IAR - suggesting that yes, there are firm rules, but once in a while we can ignore them. The fifth pillar means what it says: There ARE no firm rules. There is consensus, and that is what we go by. Sometimes someone will try to codify consensus into a set of rules, but those rules do not trump consensus; on the contrary, consensus trumps whatever attempt has been made to codify consensus into a set of rules. Please get over this idea of "rules". Rules are not what we go by here. Consensus is. --MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought rules are supposed to be a reflexion of consensus? If there are rules that don't match consensus, they should be changed so that they do shouldn't they? How are we supposed to know what consensus is otherwise? The rules could be misleading. I can see that the current "rules" regarding A7 most certainly have been misleading me if the consensus is completely different. Which brings me back to Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance. Would MfDing it be a silly thing to do? I'm not saying I intend to do it, but I genuinley beleive it's going to backfire on us, as most of the discussions cited are years old, and if what you say is true, then it's easily arguable they do not reflect current consensus. I'm not sure that any of it actually has a consensus now, even if it did in the past. Adam9007 (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Adam, I like you; you know that. That's why I have tried, over and over, to get you to be just a little less rigid, a little less determined to die on every hill, fighting to the death to defend a strict interpretation of the "rules" in every case you deal with. In this you have chosen to take a lonely, virtually one-man stand against everyone else on Wikipedia.

Your position seems to be that the written-down "rules" must be taken literally, and interpretations must be codified, and everyone should follow them (with rare IAR exceptions). If consensus changes, the "rules" should be updated, but everyone should follow the old "rules" until they are. (I am putting "rules" in quotes because of pillar #5.) If there is no clear consensus, but varying interpretations, the issue should be hashed out until there is a clear written rule. To achieve this kind of clarity, there would have to be constant RfCs to determine and codify the consensus on every detail of "the rules". For the most part that is not going to happen. That is not what anyone is here for. People would rather live with an informal consensus, explaining it to people who aren't familiar with it; those people would then be expected to follow the informal consensus.

You are that person who does not accept informal consensus, no matter how often it is explained to you. You insist on applying "the rules", and challenge whoever disagrees with you. Lately you have been challenging on wider and wider forums. Can you really not see how disruptive this is? Can you not see that people here want to work on building the encyclopedia, not spend all their time quibbling over the exact wording of the written-down "rules"?

This crusade of yours, you against the world, can only end in one of three ways. Either 1) you get Wikipedia to agree that everyone must follow a strict interpretation of every written guideline; or 2) you stop challenging the system and accept that we'd rather put up with a little ambiguity and out-of-date-ness in the "rules" rather take the time and hassle to fix them; or 3) Wikipedia loses patience with your increasingly public challenges to the system and removes your ability to do so.

When that day (#3) comes I will be unable to defend your behavior. So I have been trying to get you to modify your behavior, trying and trying to get you to consider accepting option #2 - to not fight to the death over every case, but accept it when someone disagrees with you (especially when a lot of people disagree with you) and stop arguing. Maybe even absorb what they said, so that you don't take the disputed action again and again.

You say that you have lost your reputation. But then you carry your arguments to more and more prominent platforms (first MfD, then the closer's talk page) - and you wonder why your reputation gets worse. (BTW you asked Which brings me back to Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance. Would MfDing it be a silly thing to do? Worse than silly. If you do take that, or anything, to MfD, I predict the moment of option #3 will arrive. Seriously.)

I understand that you think it's your Asperger's that makes you act this way. That's undoubtedly true. But that doesn't give you a license to act in this increasingly disruptive way. Sooner or later you will have to decide if you can function in an atmosphere of flexible rules, which Wikipedia is. If you really can't tolerate such an atmosphere, you need to seriously consider whether there might be some other forum more suited to your temperament. I'm not telling you to go away, not at all. I'm asking you to think seriously about modifying your behavior just a little, so that you can continued do the productive work you do here without constantly getting into battles over it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching this conversation and almost posted a couple times - maybe this is an appropriate place. Adam, it seems that everything is black or white for you, there's no "eh, this near the edge so I'll let it slide". If that's the case, how about when removing an iffy A7, you do a WP:BEFORE before? If you find sources indicating the subject could be notable (not that it makes claims of significance) remove the A7. If not, let the A7 tag stay and let an admin decide how to handle it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: @NeilN: Yes, things do tend to be black or white for us Aspies. It's what makes us so good at things like computer programming (which most others find extremely difficult), as there's a set, fixed way of doing things. Same with this: we (or at least I) see something as either a CCS or is not: there's no both, neither, in-between, or "it depends". I also failed to realise when it's time to drop the stick. The danger signs were all there; I just didn't recognise them for what they were. I had no idea it was to the level of a "crusade": I tend to treat each incident as an isolated one. I also often say silly things when under pressure, even though I don't really mean them. I've been a complete buffoon haven't I? What makes it worse is, well, see this discussion with Ritchie333. I can't believe how naïve I've been! I think I'll have to do option 2, but it'll help if people weren't so eager to go on the offensive, then I wouldn't have to go on the defensive. As for Neil's suggestion, I know, to some people, a subject's notability doesn't solve the lack of a CCS, so that may not always work.

I think I also need some time out (I have University work I could and probably should be focusing on right now), but I can't do that if I have this and 2 other outstanding GANs can I? Adam9007 (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Adam9007 - your comments seemed very sincere and genuine up until this point: "I think I'll have to do option 2, but it'll help if people weren't so eager to go on the offensive, then I wouldn't have to go on the defensive." which seems to negate all the things you said you were going to work on. It's a bit like throwing a ball in the house and breaking something fragile and then telling your Mom she can't be upset because she shouldn't have had that glass vase in the house. I don't think anyone's intention has been to jump down your throat but it's been a year (or more?) of people politely asking you to stop the shoddy A7 declines. Dozens of people, including admins have given you advice and attempted to help you understand all of the things that Melanie said but you have ignored it in practice - instead of saying 'hey, maybe I should take a break from declining A7s for a bit', you immediately get defensive and almost canvass for validation, like you've done here. This is why, at least as it appears to me, people have lost patience with you. You're not new, so if you're implying that people asking why you did something is bite-y, I think it's probably time to reassess what you're doing. I also see that any time this issue is brought up seriously with you, your default seems to be "I have Aspergers." Being on the spectrum, like anything else is not a free pass to be disruptive and work against consensus on a collaborative project that you choose to continue to volunteer for. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I also want to add that I appreciate all the other work you do on the project. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I can give plenty of examples where people have gone on the offensive straight away about CSD on my talk page, rather than asking me about it politley. That's what gets me annoyed. Adam9007 (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Imagine for a second that someone, let's say a user who has been here long enough to know better, keeps adding an a7 tag back to a clearly notable article. You remove, you give them some guidance on their userpage, they apologize and say they'll reevaluate their own behavior and then repeats again and again. Now you've tried again to give them gentle guidance, followed by an admin or two chiming in, saying 'hey maybe Adam is right and you should really think about what you're doing and not do it.' They apologize again, say they'll do better and then repeat the same behavior. There comes a point where you have to be a little more forceful and make it clear that the behavior is getting old. That's not being impolite. Being impolite would be taking someone straight to ANI without first discussing the issue. Though I don't want to get into a diff-battle of people who were mean to you, I think you've been given a lot of good advice, advice that even I learned from but your insistence that your behavior is caused by other people is going to wear down community patience even more than it already has. My entire point was that your statement is an issue of "it's not me, it's them." When you're given constructive criticism, use it to your advantage, don't ignore it. Anyhow, that's my unasked for 2¢. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Adam, if you have university work you ought to be doing, by all means do it. Yes, even if you have pending GAs here. Wikipedia should be a secondary thing, an adjunct to our lives - something we do in the spare time available to us. It should never be a thing we do in place of something that matters in real life. Wikipedia shouldn't even be a substitute for real-life healthy recreation and relaxation; you need that too. Nobody is indispensable here, not even in the middle of a GA review. Wiki-life will go on without us if we take a break (as I do multiple times a year).

Yes, I do think it would be a good idea for you to take a step back - not from reviewing articles, but from escalating things when someone disagrees with you. You have, and will probably continue to have, a more strict interpretation of A7 than most people. So if you continue to patrol CSD you will probably continue to do things that other people disagree with. So far, so good. The problem comes when you argue with them, when you try to justify why you were right. This is what you need to change: you need to stop regarding every disagreement as an attack, as something you have to defend against. If someone comes to your talk page to complain about an action you've taken, don't go into defense mode. Say "OK, thanks for your opinion, I'll keep it in mind" and let it go. Do you think you can do that? Even better, can you ACTUALLY keep in mind what people say when they challenge one of your actions? And if you get challenged over the same things over and over, maybe modify your actions?

The reason you have been particularly getting yourself into trouble recently is that you have been escalating your disagreement over these interpretations to more public forums, and then arguing with the people who disagreed with you in the public forum. That is what I referred to as disruptive behavior. That kind of thing is almost certain to have a bad outcome for you if you do it again.

One thing you should have learned during the past week or so is that you DO have friends here, people who wish you well and want you to both do productive work here and enjoy doing it. Face it: the way you have been approaching Wikipedia has been causing you stress rather than enjoyment. If you can manage to regard these little disagreements as little disagreements, and not escalate them into major battles, you will enjoy your work here a lot more AND get into trouble a lot less. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I once had someone volunteer to review a GA for me just as I was about to leave on a trip. I simply told them "I am going to be away for two weeks, can we put this on hold?" They replied "Sure, just ping me when you get back." It's not an emergency. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My main for of recreation is playing video games. I have enough of them: as I type this, I'm literally sitting right next to shelves full of them for various platforms. Maybe it's time I started (continued?) to play some of them? I have noticed a decrease in my other hobbies since I became active here. But then there's the University work that needs to be done; so far I've managed to do it alongside/around this, but something keeps drawing me here.

Yes, I am a attached to the rules (heck, rules is why I use "connexion" and "reflexion" rather than "connection" and "reflection"), and yes, I'll try to confine little disagreements to little disagreements. If someone comes to your talk page to complain about an action you've taken, don't go into defense mode. Say "OK, thanks for your opinion, I'll keep it in mind" and let it go. Do you think you can do that? Probably. I may have to think about how. Even now, I'm having to think very carefully about what I'm typing so as not to cause offence. Even better, can you ACTUALLY keep in mind what people say when they challenge one of your actions? That depends on what they say: it could directly contradict what others have said, and I'd rather not have to "choose sides". I actually don't know what I'll do in such a situation...

I'll stick around for the GANs. Given how I feel, if they'll fail, I'd rather they fail now than later. Adam9007 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I know this is going to be a struggle for you. All your instincts are, as Neil said, black and white. And if you are convinced you are right about something, you are tempted to defend your position to the death. If you can manage NOT to do that, you will be surprised at how much more pleasant it becomes to work at Wikipedia. Here's a possibility that might work for you: when somebody comes to your talk page to disagree about something, go offline before you answer. Write out the response you would like to give in draft form. Then after you have it polished to your satisfaction, DELETE IT - and say something neutral in reply to them. This is a technique that is advised for when you are angry at someone: Sit down, write a nice long letter telling them off, and then hit the "delete" button. Don't keep a copy, lest you be tempted to use it after all. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to remember that. I'm no good at writing letters, so I may have to do it in my head instead :). Adam9007 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't write a letter - write your response. In your sandbox or in a Word document or something. Then delete it. My experience: if you do it in your head, it stays in your head - bothering you for hours as you polish and rewrite it in your mind. Actually writing it down gets it out of your head and lets you move on. The only thing is: you need to be sure you have the discipline to delete it once you've written it down! --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have plenty of time to think about going-ons here, and often spend hours on end doing so. It's probably partly why I've said ludicrous things, because at the time, the more I thought about them, the more normal they seemed. When the time comes to actually post something, most of what I think goes unsaid (for example, I actually had plans for a more detailed confession about what an idiot I've been, but it was shortened when it actually came time to write it). But anyway, I think I should have the discipline to delete an "angry" response written outside the conversation, especially if I have no intention of actually using it. Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Times of San Diego

Since you're part of the San Diego WikiProject, I thought I'd ask: do you think that Times of San Diego meet the notability threshold? It is currently tagged as "notability unclear"; I'm wondering if we should (1) remove the tag; (2) take it to AfD or proposed deletion; or (3) merge/redirect to Media in San Diego. Neutrality^talk 18:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Neutrality. No, after a little research, I don't think it meets the notability threshold. It has a lot of references - probably enough that PROD is inappropriate - but they are not very good. Half a dozen are primary; another half dozen are about the founder's previous work at the San Jose Mercury News; of the remaining sources, the only national or well known publication is the notorious Washington Times. The local prize is trivial. In the article and in a search, I don't find anything at all ABOUT the publication, so it fails GNG. From a personal (WP:OR) point of view, although I live in San Diego and write extensively about San Diego subjects, I don't believe I have ever read anything at that site, and I certainly wouldn't use it as a reference. Looking at it now, it has respectable content, but the vast majority of it is written by one person, the founder/editor. I think a redirect (with minimal merge) would be appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll selectively merge/redirect. Neutrality^talk 19:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)