User talk:MelanieN/Archive 85

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 80

←

Archive 83

→

Why Jhalkari bai protection page..???

Helo melina, I have not getting any options to talk. I want say that you have added information about jhalkaribai page. And you are protected to that page why.? Jhalkari belong to our community and we decided what should added on her history.. Who are you to edit it. I am requesting that protected to unprotected that page. Other wise I will take action against you Yuva Sangh (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I replied at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Opal Lee

On 8 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Opal Lee, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Opal Lee is often referred to as the "grandmother of Juneteenth"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Opal Lee. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Opal Lee), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Trump's hair

Melanie, I feel hurt in response to your comments to me at Talk:Donald Trump#Personal image: hair. I understand this is an article you're tremendously invested in, and you have no doubt protected it against vandals and trolls and other disruptive editors, but I have good intentions. I think my proposal is reasonable, and I would like to have a respectful conversation evaluating the noteworthiness of the subject based on sources. I respect that you feel it is not noteworthy, and maybe you've read biographies which only mention his hair in passing. I haven't read any of his biographies; I'm just going on press coverage. Can we start over? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt my comments were personal. I know you have good intentions and your proposal is reasonable. I totally agree that we need to evaluate the noteworthiness, or perhaps the DUEness, of the subject, and that's what everyone has been doing from the beginning. So I did feel that when you posed a rather self-evident policy question ("would we include it if it was one of the most noteworthy things about him?"), it just amounted to a distraction from the discussion of noteworthiness that was already going on. But let's move on, let the discussion continue, and see what the outcome is. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Why did you block me from editing

Hello as you know there is false information being presented on this page i request you to either edit it or provide where the information that Al laat was daughter of Allah is coming from. This hurts religious sentiment of muslims. Helenwardak1 (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Helenwardak1, instead of complaining to other editors, you should make your case on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- It is extremely rude of her to block me from editing they are putting wrong information and not even citing where they got this info from. It is hurting the sentiments of muslims. She is abusing her power here and she needs to be called out on this. Helenwardak1 (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  - Well, you can try your luck at WP:ANI, but it's probably going to end up with you being blocked for edit warring and then cussing out other editors. She is not abusing her power, and she's actually not blocking you--Melanie protected the article from disruption. That's not the same thing. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Request

Please move the page I wrote Uthiyur to draft. I added very poor citation fully from Google maps and geosite. I am sorry I want to improve.

Hello, and thanks your note. I’m sorry, but I can’t move the page Uthiyur to a draft. The town of Uthiyur is a valid subject for an article, and it has been edited by many other people besides you, so it should stay in the main encyclopedia. You are right that the article could use a lot of improvement. I'm glad you want to improve it. You now understand that you must not copy material from somewhere else and paste it into the article. And you now recognize that some of your references are not good. You might want to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I understand your problem: now that the article is protected, you are not able to edit it. You could fix that by registering a username with Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? After you have made 10 edits under that username and waited four days, you will be WP:Autoconfirmed. Then you will able to edit the article. In the meantime, or if you don’t want to register, you can make edit requests at Talk:Uthiyur. For example, you could ask to have everything that is sourced to to Google maps and geosite removed. I see that other people are responding quickly to those requests. Or you could just wait until August 2 when the protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion and request

Hello! I noticed that you removed the protection from the Kalaripayattu page a few days ago. The page was initially given extended confirmed protection till the end of 2021 in light of a sockpuppet investigation. The page protection removal request was given under the impression that the sockpuppet is no longer active and will no longer make disruptive edits or vandalize the page. Unfortunately, I believe the sockpuppet in question is still active, albeit under another anonymous IP. They have contacted me on my talk page on a few occasions to add non-neutral, and POV pushing information to the article, while citing sources that were often unreliable, or not in English. Their most recent attempt at this on my talk page was made today on July 30th, 2021, and can be found here.

Other attempts to contact me to make the exact same changes to the Kalaripayattu page can be found here as well as here. I suspect this anonymous IP may be the sockpuppet who was banned, as some of the things they mentioned are related to some of the views the sockpuppet presented in their edits on the article, as well as in talk page discussions.

I've been taking care of and maintaining this page for over a year now, and have seen many instances of vandalism, sockpuppetry, and other disruptive editing done in violation of WP:NPOV. Most of this sort of editing was done by anonymous IPs, some of which made sockpuppet accounts in order to bypass semi-protection and continue vandalising the article.

I cannot claim to be the most experienced editor in the world, and I am still being trained in the CVUA. While I try to follow WP:AGF for all editors, including anonymous IPs, I can't help but think that removing protection entirely for this page would be a good idea. I am well aware of the policy within WP:PP regarding pages not being protected preemptively, but I can't help but think that it isn't a good idea to leave this page totally unprotected, so I wanted to reach out and ask you directly.

As such, I would humbly request that you restore extended confirmed protection to the page, at least for the duration it was initially given (to the end of 2021), or maybe some extended, long standing form of protection, be it pending changes, or even semi-protection (though this may not work, as many anonymous editors in the past have made accounts, simply made 10 edits and quickly bypassed semi-protection). Dealing with vandals, constant violations of WP:NPOV and related issues have honestly been quite stressful, and I honestly do not want to deal with it on a constant basis again unless I have to.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and for considering my request.

Kalariwarrior (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kalariwarrior, and thanks for your note and your input. I’m going to pass this request to the administrator who originally protected the page. @RoySmith: You are the administrator who imposed the extended-confirmed protection in December 2020, extending through December 2021, so you should probably make this call. Your concern was sockpuppetry, citing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adhithya Kiran Chekavar/Archive. On July 27 there was a request for unprotection at RFPP, and you said you did not see any current problem with socks, so I unprotected it.[1] Since then, there have been just two edits to the article, made by an extended-confirmed user, AleksiB 1945, who seems to be an established user unsullied by sockpuppetry. Their two edits were to add a pronunciation guide, using a script that I’m guessing is Malayalam. They were reverted by Kalariwarrior. I don’t know enough about the subject to interpret that exchange. There was a sockpuppet investigation on July 28 [2], but it did not seem to implicate this article.

However, Kalariwarrior says he has been contacted on his talk page by IPs trying to get him to make edits to the Kalaripayattu page - see the links he posted here - and he feels the socks are still active. He is requesting re-imposition of the extended confirmed protection. I will leave that decision up to you, but my own inclination would lie on the side of re-imposition of EC or at least semi-protection, based on the approaches being made on his talk page. Since protection made sense in December 2020, and since Kalariwarrior's evidence suggests socks are still active, it may still make sense now. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kalariwarrior The general rule is that page protection should be at the minimum level and the shortest amount of time to deal with disruptive edits, and should not be WP:PREEMPTIVE. While I understand your concern, nobody's actually made any disruptive edits to the page since it was unprotected, so for now we should just leave things as they are. Should disruptive editing start up again on the page, the best thing would be to file a request at WP:RFPP and also ping me so I see the request quickly. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so promptly you two. I apologize for the late reply, but life got pretty busy. I'll keep your advice in mind and will file another request at WP:RFPP and ping you if anything comes up on the page again. Thanks! Kalariwarrior (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)