This is an archive of past discussions with User:Melmann. 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.
In what possible way was this "introducing undue bias", given that all the IP did was swap the order of the sections in a list? I've blanked (but not deleted) your warning, as I think it's clearly inappropriate. Please be careful using Huggle; I can see you're new to it, but be aware that that the big red box that comes up when you download it and every time you run it is there for a reason – misuse of Huggle (deliberate or otherwise) can lead to removal of rollback and/or blocking without warning. (Note: this is not a threat to block you! As I say, I can see you're new to it.) – iridescent01:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, true, I'm sorry. I understated how Huggle works, I know I'm responsible for my edits and I know consequences (and I red the manual). User did introduce biased content unsourced content, but in previous edit. I will fix my edit and revert his biased edit old-fashioned way just to ensure I do it properly. Thanks for heads up.--Melmann(talk)01:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I did notice, and I red them on public computer, and as I was unwilling to log in on computer that might have been compromised, I decided to postpone my "thank you", but then it slipped my mind and I forgot (maybe I should create secondary account for public computers). Thanks for reminding me. I'll go over there and post now. 12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - now I almost overlooked your reply! I wish questions were posted on subpages. Anyway, have a nice new year! — Sebastian23:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)(I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)
Regarding your reversion
Hi,
The page is being updated. Sources will be added later on. I am reverting back your edit. Thank you for being vigilant. If you like you can add a needed citation tag for the article.--Irooniqermez (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Unsourced IP edits raised my flag, my apologies if it was you and I reverted a valid edit. I will ignore any further edit's to that page for a little while. Thank's for the heads up. --Melmann(talk)19:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
"A paramilitary is a force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military, but which is not considered part of a state's formal armed forces."
"Depending on context, paramilitaries can include:
"The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 in 2005, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky [1]. Raids that lead to deaths of innocent people are increasingly common; since the early 1980s, 40 bystanders have been killed, according to the Cato Institute in Washington, DC."
Swat teams are paramilitary by definition, nature, and action, as readily verifiable through other canonical articles and general common sense, Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.205.76 (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed your complain about my recent RC patrol edit. I had reverted your edit based on the fact that it is not supported by verifiable third party source. Wikipedia article on paramilitary is not a verifiable third party source and such leaps of logic fail to justify your unsourced edit, in my mind. I stand behind the revert. --Melmann(talk)17:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Reverted edits to "The Outlaw" (1943 film)
I made an edit to the page The Outlaw under section Production which I believe to be consistent with Wikipedia style guidelines.
The sentence in question: "In 1941, while filming The Outlaw, Hughes felt that the camera did not do justice to Jane Russell's large bust. He employed his engineering skills to design a new cantilevered underwire bra to emphasize her assets."
The phrase "emphasize her assets" does not reflect a neutral tone: I thought it too slangy for an encyclopedia article.
The change to "emphasize her cleavage" was intended as a more neutral replacement. I considered "emphasize her breasts", to use the biological term, but the word "breast" had been used a number of times in the paragraph, and so would have been repetitious.
I reverted the edit under suspicion of vandalism. Shortly prior to that edit I had reverted several breast-related vandalisms done by IP users therefore your edit raised my flag. You may want to consider opening an account. My apologies, it was probably unnecessary, feel free to revert my edit although I think that moving from "assets" to "cleavage" doesn't improve the sentence much. Cheers! --Melmann(talk)18:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
That is completely understandable. I was pressed for time re: the edit, so I couldn't do a full rewrite, as I believe that paragraph needs. I will be creating an account this evening, and may post a rewrite tonight. Best, JCM 72.44.148.196 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand that. However, the structure of 5 level vandalism warnings and then a block still applies even if you have not committed any vandalism yourself. Please consider creating an account to prevent you from recieving unnecessary notifications and allow you to genuinely edit from this IP should it be blocked for further vandalism. --Melmann(talk)04:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Melmann -- Thank you for fixing my error with regard to inadvertently removing a page. That page is in my User Sandbox. How do I remove it so that I can create a new page?
user:djhuff—Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
That page is not your sandbox. Your Sandbox simply redirects to it. It is in the main user space which is reserved for actual content not meta pages. If you wanna test thing in a sandbox try WP:SANDBOX or blank your own sandbox which you can find at User:Djhuff/sandbox. Hope that helps.--Melmann(talk)12:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Melmann -- Thank you. How do I "blank" my own sandbox? I did create a user subpage for the new page I'm working on. User:djhuff
Just open this link: User:Djhuff/sandbox and blank it. It is your personal page so you can do as you wish with it, including fully blanking it. Also note that your user page redirects to an article as well, you might wanna change that too. You can find it here: User:Djhuff.--Melmann(talk)12:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, got it. Thank you. Successfully blanked my sandbox and moved over the page I'm creating. One last question: how do I delete the user sub-page I created? (I like to keep things tidy.) -- djhuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djhuff (talk • contribs) 13:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
You cannot do that. Only administrators can delete pages. You can place a Request for Speedy Deletion of the page as it is in your user space and when an Admin gets around to reviewing your request he or she will delete it. See WP:CSD#U1.--Melmann(talk)13:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect revision
Hi Melmann - not sure why you revised my recent edit? For some reason the word was misspelled and you edited out my revision. Please advise. 120.148.246.165 (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, not sure why you undid my edit.. I corrected a grammatical error and neither added nor deleted information, so the issue of citing (or lack thereof) my sources is not really relevant. Insulin therapy. User talk:173.80.183.88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.183.88 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Something happened at that article and you added vandalism ~ how annoying for you, a recent changes patroller! ~ but i reverted you. All should be well. Cheers, LindsayHello03:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. Sorry. It was a multi-edit vandalism case, seems like I didn't revert all the edits by the vandalising user. Thanks for being vigilant.--Melmann(talk)03:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Changes
Well the change of Jihad to Brainwashed Jihad was because it really was that. The Jihad fought by TTP and Hakimullah Mehsud cannot be considered Jihad, because the war they declared in the name of Jihad violates every rule of Jihad. What they did was simple Terrorism, not Jihad. As the term Jihad not only leaves a negative image of our religion and Muslims, but even disgraces our teachings and meaning.
So it is my request to change it to Brainwashed Jihad or Terrorism, not 'Jihad'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.211.126 (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Melmann, I completely updated this page Harvey Mackay. Would you mind taking a look at it and if it passes inspection, removing the two notices? Thank you. Djhuff (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Djhuff
The legitimacy of the edit on Mercy Memorial School's page
Dude,have you studied there..? or do u even know what that place is like..? Well I do,because I have been a part of that prestigious institution (and yes it well deserves the title),the things that were posted were a particular persons view about the faculty members and the school's management which in no way describe it's stature.There wasn't any factual data provided,only a few controversial matters(not proven) and a few disrespectful statements about the teachers,who genuinely do care about the future of their pupils.I edited the part that wasn't a proven fact and left the amount that was true,as it should be on wikipedia.U don't edit for fun,it is a serious issue.That place is alma mater of many people contributing brilliantly to this society and throwing a mire on the school well it stains our charachter too.Thus any sort of insignificant,fallacious man made mockery about it must be attended,which I did.Thank you. 117.207.134.158 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.134.158 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Google Removal of RankDex Info
Melmann,
I did explain the removal! I said it was irrelevant, as the patent on that had no significant impact on Google. The inclusion of the RankDex information was tangential at best and distractionary at worst.DeeJaye6 (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay. For some reason I missed the edit comment. I can see you've already reverted it, so it should be fine. Thanks for letting me know. Apologies. --Melmann(talk)09:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Re Vogue edit
I wanted to leave a query on what year Condé Montrose Nast actually bought Vogue, as Wikipedia appears to be incorrect.
Then I decided to delete my query as I didn't know what the hell I was doing.
I am a fan and affilliate of Katerina Jebb. I have recently been trying to add titles to her citation links and you keep deleting them. I am also trying to delete information that she no longer wants up there.
Hi, I confess I don't have a clue why you reverted my edits at the article--I was removing unsourced and puffy claims and non-notable performers , and restoring some of the maintenance templates that the article's creator--a COI account--had reverted. Among the unsourced passages you've restored is the following:
Numerous emerging artist who performed on its stage went on to bigger scenes like La Voix and Montreal International Jazz Festival. Many benefited from having frequent opportunities to hone their craft in front of its audience. Artists were encouraged to perform original works-not just covers.
This isn't encyclopedic content, it's public relations. Also, as I noted in an earlier edit summary, many of the sources are nothing more than press releases. I'd prefer that you have another look at this, rather than begin an unnecessary reversion process. Also, I won't have time to work on this again until this evening. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... changing the section name tripped me up. Arguably, the previous edits have merit, but as RC patroller I remove obvious bad-faith edits, and your edit is far less obvious and clearly not bad-faith as it originally seemed. Should you choose to revert my change I will not contest it. Cheers for bringing this up (also consider making an account). --Melmann(talk)12:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:HG. Notice that all my edits have the HG link. It is essentially like WP:TW, but it shows you a diff, you decide if it is good or bad and it handles the rest of it. To use it you need rollerback access, but with your edit count you'd probably very easily get it. CHeck outWikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback. Just make sure you read up about it for a bit as you you can do a bit of damage if you're not paying attention. --Melmann(talk)17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Melmann,
I am attempting to update inaccurate information on this page. A good majority of the information is inaccurate. I attempted to support each update with a citation link. Could you please tell me why these updates were not appropriate/accepted?
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.130.75 (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Melmann. I have undone your edit on Pegasus.12k's userpage. Per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7, "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request." (emphasis mine) If you feel it's for deletion, you may restore the csd template so that admins will re-evaluate it.
I did cite a source IMDB and last weeks radiotimes, also there are numerous newspaper and website articles stating the same thing information. You removed information regarding the film 'The Circle'92.16.0.145 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No content removed
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but no content was removed from the article 'Massively multiplayer online role-playing game', so far. I was actually trying to reorganize the contents of this article, which unfortunately lead to a temporary loss of contents (which you fixed by reverting!). I think you should take a look at this revision and tell me what you think about it.
Please make use of the edit summary explaining your changes. Removed content without explanation will get you reverted by RC patrollers almost every time. --Melmann(talk)13:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I admit that I made a mistake. I will be more careful in future. Thank you for your kind regards. --(Roshu 13:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC))
This page was deleted today. I didn't find much sources online. There was only one mention of him with no picture and it was not clear whether that GQ article was about this guy with Wikipedia page. What should I do, as the sources are still not reliable? The previous version had no paragraphs, this version is structured. But the notability factor is same. I won't nominate once again. It's upto you to take decision. --Action HeroShoot!14:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't find the deletion log for the deletion you mentioned. Can you link me? While the article has some significant issues and shaky sources, recreation of deleted content whilst substantially improving it is not necessarily a criteria for deletion. I can't see it meeting any of the other WP:CSD or WP:BLPPROD criteria. The article seems to show sufficient level of good faith effort. I'd recommend you seek further input on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies or potentially WP:BLP/Noticeboard if you suspect bad faith. --Melmann(talk)15:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Citations removal
I apologize for not stating the reasons for why I had them removed but my plan was to re-organize their locations into their right places on the page but the ones I added were also new and now I lost them because you reverted the page, can you please give me a link to the page I inserted the new references in so I can add them to the prior ones as it will be troublesome searching for all the references again? I also wanted to use the bibliography references as referenced citations next to the extra information I was going to add
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Rösselsprung (1944), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for replacing the material -- I'm sorry I removed it without saying why. The article has been flagged with multiple issues and I've been trying to clear some of them up. I'm a friend of Ms Heydt's. I believe she and her work meet the criteria for notability, but too much of the content in the article is her own and her boyfriend's (A0822529).
I'll keep on editing it for style and try to get it into shape; would you let me know if my efforts are going in the right direction, if you have a moment? Thanks much.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Fort Myers nightclub shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ―Mandruss☎20:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
OWS subpoena and the Signal Protocol
Hello, Melmann. I reverted your addition to the article about the Signal Protocol. As you can see from the documents themselves, the subpoena that OWS received did not target the Signal Protocol, but the amount of information that OWS stores about the users of its Signal messaging service. Even though none of the messaging services that use the Signal Protocol have access to the contents of the messages, different instances can store different amounts of metadata about their users. There is nothing in the Signal Protocol itself that would prevent a company that uses it from retaining metadata (Rottermanner et al. 2015, p. 4). OWS has made a conscious decision not to retain metadata, and have designed the software that runs on the Signal servers accordingly. Therefore, I think it's WP:OFFTOPIC to write about the subpoena in the Signal Protocol article. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Melmann. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hero of the Soviet Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vasily Petrov. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I am dropping by to inform you that an infobox that you added to the Monero (cryptocurrency) article in revision 811527171 contained errors and therefore didn't display as you intended it. I fixed those errors in revision 811530301, so you want to take a look. Here is a brief summary:
You had given the release date as "2017|10|15" while it should have been "{{Start date and age|2017|10|15}}". As such, the article had only rendered the "2017" part and triggered an error flag about "10" and "15" being unrecognized/invalid parameters.
In the |platform= section, you had given "x86", while it must have been "IA-32". Please consult with MOS:X86 for details.
|repo= and |website= contained unformatted URLs. Normally, you should use the {{URL}} template to format them and stick to MOS:WEBADDR
|status= was populated with "Active development". According to WP:DATED, you shouldn't. Perhaps you find it useful to know that prior reviewing your contribution to this article, I reviewed another article with the same problem, but in that case, the development had stopped 7 years ago! Sure, some editors get emotional and do not abide by this principle, but a good editor always thinks about the long-term future and knows that this too shall pass.
Version number 0.11.1.0 was placed inside |latest release version= while it should have been in the |latest preview version=. General convention dictates that version numbers that start with 0. mean the corresponding product is not yet "production-ready". But I don't insist on this one. Some editors get emotional and insulted to see their beloved product being called "not production-ready", and believe me, I am definitely not here to insult or hurt emotions. I prefer to agree to disagree and part with those editors amicably.
By the way, good work. I believe you can make that article into a Featured Article quite easily.
Thank you for all those changes. Every single one makes the infobox better. I've added a self-made screenshot of the GUI to the infobox, if you have a moment I'd appreciate if you could review the file and associated categories/licensing info to make sure it's all kosher as you seem to be quite knowledgeable. Any further criticism or suggestions are also most welcome. Cheers! Melmann(talk)09:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Melmann. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi-
I made a very minor edit to an article on my local town. All I did was add the basketball club in a list of sports clubs. It was removed on the grounds it didn’t have a source, but since I live here and play for that club I can verify it exists.
Thank you for reading 😊 SarahBuckley123 (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for getting in touch. I appreciate that you have local knowledge of the situation, but this is not how Wikipedia works. Please have a look at WP:OR. Thanks. Melmann(talk)15:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Removing one of the external link
Hey Melmann can u please tell me why you remove one of the external link as i am the citizen of this district and i want to share every knowledge so please don't remove again because these are some facts about Muzaffarabad people need to see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayanhussainqureshi (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
HOW THE HELL ARE YOU TRYNA TELL ME I AM WRONG OR MISTAKEN ABOUT ME?????? I AM OG DuBB AND I THINK YOU'LL FIND I KNOW WELL ABOUT MYSELF AND MY OWN BLOODY LOCALITY WHERE I LIVE!
YOU'RE CLEARLY HATING ON ME. YOU LIVE IN CANADA, NOT ENGLAND. YOU HAVE ZERO RIGHT TO TELL ME ABOUT ME AND ZERO RIGHT TO TELL ME ABOUT MY OWN CITY WHERE I LIVE AND KNOW MOST THINGS THAT GO ON IN MY OWN LOCALITY!
YOU'RE TALKING NONSENSE ABOUT IT NOT BEING FROM A LEGIT SOURCE, YOU WON'T FIND A MORE LEGIT SOURCE ABOUT ME THAN ME! HOW STUPID TO THINK YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT ME THAN I KNOW OR THAT YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT THE STREETS I WALK EVERY DAY WHEN YOU LIVE IN CANADA AND MOST LIKELY HAVEN'T EVEN VISITED HERE BEFORE.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.74.208 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
YOU'RE A WHINING NEEK.. SHUT UP.. I'LL GET MY WIFE TO TYPE IT FROM THE SAME DESKTOP THEN... THEN IT'S NOT ME ADDING INFORMATION ABOUT ME AND THEN IT'S THE SECOND BEST EXPERT ON ME ADDING IT....
STOP BEING A WHINGING NEEK! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.74.208 (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Children's Crusade Disambiguation edit
Hi, I recently made an edit to the disambiguation page of Children's Crusade. The Lapland War is a part of WWII, it even states it as such it it's own Wikipedia page. You stated that my edit contained no citation, yet there was not citation for the statement that "Children's Crusade" was the name of the latter half of the Lapland War. Urbanwanderer2071 (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Just because there is one uncited statement on Wikipedia it does not meant that it is somehow acceptable to reproduce it elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see WP:REFLOOP for more info. Melmann(talk)08:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
recently I made an edit on the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting article to correct an error. The article currently states:
"It [Pittsburgh shooting] is the largest mass shooting in the United States since the 2017 Las Vegas shooting."
This is obviously an error, because there have been 2 shootings with more deaths than the Pittsburgh shooting since the Vegas shooting (which had 59 deaths), the Sutherland Springs church shooting (27 deaths) and the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting (17 deaths). Since the Stoneman Douglas shooting is the more recent of the two, it should say that the Pittsburgh shooting was the largest mass shooting in the US since the Stoneman Douglas shooting. However, my edit trying to correct the error was reverted for not citing a source, even though the current, incorrect fact presented in the article doesn't cite a source either. I believe this revert is also an error.
Mere fact that there is other uncited info in the article does not give you the license to continue introducing further uncited info, particularly for a such a high profile article like Pittsburgh synagogue shooting which is linked from the front page. You also have to remember that I am not reviewing every single change made to the article or the article as a whole. I am merely reviewing, in this case, your single edit. Thus, in my estimation, this revert was not an error and I stand by it. Do not introduce uncited information into Wikipedia. Melmann(talk)13:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I recently edited the List of mass shootings in the United States article to add a date to the table cell about the 2015 San Bernardino shooting (comparison between my edit and the previous revision). However, my edit was reverted for "not providing a reliable source": I'm pretty sure this is an error revert, because the source is pretty much in the article for the shooting (2015 San Bernardino attack). In addition, I don't see anyone else citing outside sources for attacks with their own articles on Wikipedia in the list article. Because the 2015 San Bernardino shooting has its own article which contains the date that I edited in, I think the revert is an error. Thanks for reading! Prism55 (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Any casual reader, including myself, cannot be expected to magically know which general reference covers your specific claim. This is why any potentially contentious change, such as factual changes that are often used for hard-to-detect vandalism, need to be supported by an inline citation. Your edit did not offer an inline citation. Please familiarise yourself with WP:MINREF. Melmann(talk)13:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Melmann. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Can you please help get this to the Public, Brian Damaged & need help
ll open or freesource ideas by I't" Theory. Gov was watching me while I tested some stuff... Lots of hungry vines this fall. HMU for full details
Medicine. DNA ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD OF ENTIRE CELL, STAGE 1 h20 & crushed rock stuff make cell wall. Gen EM Field , gen Electricity to acidify water, Small pockets of Acid form & enclos w/ EM field. Cell becomes battery. Inject modified electrical signal & cell builds
OPENSOURCE
WHat Number is Health care to each Govt? #1 worldwide? As close to free as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmathers1789 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Cremat Changes
Hi, you've just changed my edits made in that page. Cremaet or, as you say, "Cremat" is not a Catalan beverage, it's Valencian. Catalan people tend to grab Valencian Valencian and Balearic traditions and try to make the world think that they own them, just try to read Valencian and Balearic articles, not only Catalan. I know what I'm talking about because I live in Valencia, please reconsider your position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.204.250 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I changed the CJ mosely page because there is no official word from the New York Jets. Please stop changing back that he is on the Jets which he is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.152.156.57 (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You need to stop messaging me every time I make an edit. You are changing my changes I made that reports are not true UNLESS comnfirmed by team itself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.205.111.248 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
/* July 2019 */ Hello Melmann, Neha Sharma is a close friend of mine which can be established by certain Instagram posts or our pics from earlier[1] . [2]. I only help her in dire need for her digital or social media and in this case i am neither receiving nor expecting any compensation for my help in these edits. Thus request you to process the edit change request. If need be we can organize a video call with Neha herself for you or any other member to verify. The data currently is outdated and quite sensical. In India it can get quite perturbing for a celebrity's mental health if they're online details are uploaded incorrectly or if are outdated. Thus, keeping my friend's health and happiness in regard is why i humbly request you to process these changes thank you.
If you are not being paid but are merely a volunteer, you're still potentially in violation of WP:COI and disclosing this on your userpage would be a good idea. Furthermore, it would be good to respond to my message on your userpage, so that your denial is stored there and future editors do not have to hunt through my talk page to find the above note. Melmann (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sunil Bohra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello Melmann. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Thomas Bryan (Welsh footballer), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: playing for a national team is a claim of notability per WP:NFOOTY. Thank you. SoWhy07:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
How do I upload my evidence of correction to Amazon Eve's birthday. I have multiple submissions. I can give you her direct phone number as well. Ask her yourself. Mykidsbowl (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
By finding a source that supports your claim. See WP:V.
War Movie - Bollywood
Hi Bro,
In one Wiki article it says war movie is highest earning of 2019 while in highest grossing bollowood movies it is not even listed... It seems the wikipedia is controlled by mafia, who post fake figures and also publish complete spoiler/full movie story on the movie profile while not for some chosen others.
Please look into this.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmendarm (talk • contribs) 06:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Change to Article, Toronto Transit Commission Accessibility
Dear Melmann,
I just received a message saying that I had made a change to the article on Toronto Transit Commission Accessibility. It said that you had removed that change. The problem is that the date the message was sent was November 3rd, 2013. Also I did not recently make any changes to any articles. Please inform me if there is something wrong with this statement, as I do not know how IP addresses work and maybe it was a change made by someone using the same modem (or something of the sort).
Hi, I saw you reverted a change on the Sky Muster page as non-sourced and non-relevant. I have to disagree with your assessment of irrelevance. Don't you think it's a funny coincidence that those names come together on a project like this? If you need a source, go ask ViaSat. Unfortunately as meager engineers we don't get our names on press-releases. Brook did a lot of work on the system, as did I (we worked together).
My revert was regarding reversion of misinformation introduced in Special:Diff/939975252 which was immediately prior to your change. Apologies if your valid edit got affected but, in my estimation, most expeditious reversal was necessary given high profile of this article (linked from front page at the time of this being written). Please feel free to reinstate your edit(s). Melmann21:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think you made a mistake with the renaming effort on that page. First of all, WP:SNOW did not apply simply because the large consensus was for the renaming. Secondly WP:COMMONNAME did not apply because an outbreak is of the disease, not the virus. This disease finally has a name, and those of us who support the change are happy to have a WHO sanctioned name to work with. Using the new WHO name for the disease is in accord with WP:NCMED. I kindly ask you to revert your snowballing. EMS | Talk22:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
There was very little to no concensus building based on policy. Review WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:POLL for more info. Article subject that have 'official names' are often given more common names. This is all outlined in WP:COMMONNAME. WP:NCMED is the only policy based argument that was seriously advanced, but there was already concensus built in the past to move away from highly scientific/medical names. I welcome you to contest the closure at WP:MOVEREVIEW, but for now I stand by the closure. Melmann22:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
You have not applied WP:NAMECHANGES to COMMONNAME. Also, there has been an inadequate amount of time to reasonably build consensus which makes this appear to be WP:SUPERVOTE. I recommend the discussion be re-opened and for you to make your arguments as a participant and not a closer. Mkdwtalk22:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
similar to ems57fcva, and Mkdw; I am here for the same reason. Even though I do not support the suggested name, your application of WP:SNOW was highly incorrect. Basically you are forcing your opinion through the closure. Like Mkdw suggested, I also recommend the discussion be re-opened and for you to make your arguments as a participant and not a closer. —usernamekiran (talk)22:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
At a risk of repeating myself, within your opposition to the closure there appears to be very little policy based arguments. Even the contents of WP:SUPERVOTE clearly lay out that the concensus is not a majority vote but a policy based argument. Make no mistake, I am not in principle opposed to the proposed name, I just think it is far too early to consider changing to that name in light of WP:COMMONNAME. Once again, either advance a policy based argument against the close or achieve concensus in the review and I will be happy to revert my closure. Melmann22:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I reverted the closure. Unless you are an admin, WP:RMNAC indicates that non-admin closure should wait for seven days. This is in addition to using WP:SNOW wrongly. Hzh (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
And yet WP:RMNAC says: but the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure. Anyway, I responded on your page before I saw this message. Let's continue it there. Melmann23:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
erm... Yes, consensus is not a majority vote but policy based argument. You interrupted that argument process. Also, there is more than one guideline which can play deciding role to a given article title. COMMONNAME is not the only guideline. Further reading: WP:LETTER, and WP:UCS. —usernamekiran (talk)23:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I happened to notice this very unusual and abrupt discussion closure as well today. It definitely should be reverted and the discussion should be allowed to continue. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I hope that you have learned that while Wikipedia is not a democracy, neither is it a dictatorship. I know that you were trying to fulfill your duties as an RC patroller, but in this case you ended up imposing your personal opinion onto a topic that was (and still is) being heavily debated by a large set of involved and concerned editors. I thank for the overall good work that you and those like you are doing in Wikipedia. Even so, I also kindly ask that you refrain from attempting to unilaterally close a discussion on a heavily edited page in the future. EMS | Talk05:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
It is more than that. Melmann took on the role of an admin when he/she had no authority to do so. If this behaviour is repeated again, it should be an issue that needs to be be taken up at ANI. This should be taken as a warning to Melmann. Hzh (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hzh: lets not take this too harshly :) Like ems57fcva said, I think Melmann were editing in good faith, and misread the situation, and sort of applied own opinion. On other note, non-admins are allowed to close the discussions, thats why we have "non-admin closure" template. Whether heavily edited or not, closing discussions sooner than the premeditated duration is generally not a good idea, and requires a lot of experience. Similarly, I also recommend Melmann to avoid closing discussions till they get enough experience for it. See you folks around. —usernamekiran (talk)12:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The guideline is very clear, non-admin closure can be done only after 7 days of discussion, and the closer should declare it as a non-admin closure. Melmann ignored the guideline completely, and appeared to have close the discussion as an admin. Hzh (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi I was just trying to add the photo to the original profile!
Bertha Urdang
Born April 12, 1912
London, England
Died February 22, 2001 (aged 88)
Jerusalem, Israel
Nationality Israeli, Jewish
Education University of London, Sorbonne, Paris
Known for Gallery owner
Movement Israeli art
Spouse(s) Tuvia Urdang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awongalema (talk • contribs) 13:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
OK Thank You I will follow your advice. Have you put it back to its original state!? I will do some more testing and research before I try that again! & Thank You! (Awongalema (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC))
Yes, it was completely neutral
People, if you can even call those monsters that, that behead people only for not submitting to a specific takfiri cult of a specific religious sect are nothing else than terrorists, and it's a totally uncontroversial claim. Thus, my edit to Abkhazian Network News Agency was totally neutral. Facts are facts.
But maybe we should start to call the people that slammed planes into the two towers on Manhattan on september 11, 2001 was just "rebels" and "opposition" - because it's e.x.a.c.t.ly the same people we are talking about, the same organization (al-Qaeda = Jabhat al-Nusra = Hayat Tahrir al-Sham), the name changes do not change who they are. 37.123.162.224 (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Buzztrack. Logos are generally guided by WP:NFC and usually can be used on Wikipedia provided that it meets the non-free content use rationale. You (or another editor) should make sure that the particular usage meets the rationale and that this is all well documented. Once you feel you have done so, reopen the edit request to enable the non-COI editor to implement this. I, unfortunately, will not be able to implement it myself as I am not deeply familiar with the WP:NFC policy and therefore do not want to potentially create legal liability for Wikipedia. If you need further help, I suggest you post on WP:CQ. Editors there are much better versed in copyright nuances. Melmann15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Col Adam Bingham - Laughlin OG Commander
Good afternoon ... Col Adam Bingham assummed Command of the 47th Operations Group on 24 Jul 2020 and his callsign is "VADER 01"
You can verify the information directly on Laughlin AFBs page found here:
Hello. At Wikipedia we avoid original research and conflict of interest editing. See WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:AB. That does not mean you cannot add the info you tried to add, but it does mean you have to support your assertion with a reliable source, otherwise the info may be removed by any Wikipedian. See WP:RS for more info on sources. Melmann21:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Good afternoon ... Col Adam Bingham assummed Command of the 47th Operations Group on 24 Jul 2020 and his callsign is "VADER 01"
You can verify the information directly on Laughlin AFBs page found here:
Also, how do I get the current patch to display on this page? The one shown is in incorrect (see previous link for the right one). Thank you! C17pelican01 (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
It is not the matter of me verifying it, all factual claims on Wikipedia need to have an inline/intext citations. Please read closely the links I provided above. Also read WP:PAID for guideline regarding paid editing.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
What do you mean?! I already said how to change the template. Simply remove the "part of the Russia-Turkey proxy conflict" sentence from the main infobox template. How can this request not be clear?
It is not a universally accepted consensus among political analysts and is heavily debated. Therefore, it should not be stated as fact in the page. Sweetkind5 (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Edit requests are for uncontroversial edits only or for edits where consensus has been reached. Your edit is likely to be contested, so before you open the edit request you should discuss it on the talk page. Once the consensus is reached, I will be happy to implement it, no matter what it is. Melmann15:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I had removed it by accident, as the page closed as I posted my take (which also conflicted with another's edit that I attempted to incorporate). There is no other reason for this message, I just felt I should clarify my mistake. Cheers, puggo (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Maisie Can You Hear Me
I can assure you my edit - 'Maisie Can You Hear Me? By Miles Gibson was adapted by Cameron Lee Horace as a short drama film The Other Woman, starring Sophie Colquhoun, Lisa Ronaghan, Helen Mae Austin and Andy Anson', is correct as I adapted and directed the film! I was asked by Miles to edit the page for him.
Thanks, Cameron Lee HoraceThepoethorace (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ricky Martin and his discography. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page!
Thank You.
Hello @SD0001, DannyS712, and Enterprisey. A while back I made a userscript suggestion and it seemed that there was some interest to potentially develop it. I was just wondering if it was possible to get a status update on this effort? I understand you are volunteers, just like almost everyone on Wikipedia, and you develop what interests you, so please don't take this message as a demand or me trying to put pressure on you. I have no expectations that anyone will develop anything I've suggested. I'm only checking to make sure I've not missed a release or a beta testing opportunity. Thank you for all your efforts on all your scripts. Melmann10:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Well I didn't get anywhere. What I came up with was too restrictive to be even worth uploading. So basically what it did was that it would allow the user to place a tag after some text the user selected on the page. But it wouldn't work if the text selected included any links or templates or any other markup. Even worse, if the same text appeared on the page multiple times, it wouldn't be able to know where to place the tag. I'll ask around and see if anyone has ideas on how to script this properly. – SD0001 (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the update and your efforts. If you indeed arrive at something that can be tested, please ping me. Melmann15:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Surplus warning
I was wondering why you warned this user. I'd already left them a warning, and they haven't edited again. Generally we don't leave a second warning unless they're continuing to edit in an unhelpful way, or other problems are found. Warning them a second time for the same edits (with an increase in warning level) is a bit WP:BITE-y. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@BlackcurrantTea: You're right. I was going thought the page history and noticed I did not warn the user for previous removal of content, so I issued the warning for the edits I reverted (prior to yours). However, the IPs are different, and that fact escaped me at the time. Although it's likely that it is the same individual, we cannot know that, so my warning is inappropriate. I've rolled back my edit. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Melmann22:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. It's almost certainly the same person, and if they keep on, they can be warned again. The pending changes protection may convince them to give up; one can hope. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ana (gamer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The International.
Hi Melmann, I apologize if this is in the wrong area. You recently rejected a change I made, stating that the change was not constructive. What does that mean in this case?
I believe that the self-defense claim is not gun related because self-defense encompasses someone defending their self (or someone else) with or without any weapon. Also, the specific law on the castle doctrine does not mention guns or weapons. The other gun laws in the Ohio gun law page specifically mention guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.171.46 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@74.140.171.46: Removing the stand your ground from list of gun laws did not seem right to me as such laws seem to have the express purpose of preventing criminalisation of self defence using guns. Generally speaking, on Wikipedia, editors are encouraged to be bold, but when somebody challenges your edit, you should be ready to defend the purpose or appropriateness of the edit on the article's talk page. This sometimes referred to as BRD (bold, revert, discuss) cycle. I suggest you make your case why the edit is appropriate or what change you propose on the talk page and start a discussion to work out a consensus position.Melmann19:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Melmann. You previously left me valuable feedback on an edit request I made to update the Francisco Partners article. I have an outstanding update I requested on the Francisco Partners Talk page. At the bottom of an ongoing discussion, you will see I am hoping editors can update the amount of committed capital Francisco Partners has raised, as well as its offices. Are you willing to review that request and incorporate the changes into the live article if you agree with them? I will not make my own updates to the page as I respect the rules in place for my conflict of interest as an employee of Francisco Partners. Thanks for any consideration. Janice at FP (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Janice at FP: I will have a look, but I currently have less time to edit Wikipedia than I used to, and this means I'd rather avoid getting engaged in edits which would require lots of effort to defend (and COI/Paid edits tend to be those). Melmann11:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion on the talk page here. TL;DR IA is not a RS, and especially not for a BLP. This goes back years. --Pete (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
COI Tool Notice
Hello, I just noticed (and fixed) an error where a "Not done" reply would mark {{Edit request}} as go ahead. I noticed that this happened to you as I am going through fixing any templates marked incorrectly. This should no longer occur, thanks Terasail[✉️]12:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I mentioned you at Talk:DZMM TeleRadyo at the Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021 on July 28, 2021, but you dont respond at my reply since that day. The IP I used to reply tgere was differebt from the IP I used now. Please check it there and reply on it. Thank You! 120.29.76.223 (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Untitled
Mistake in date of birth?how some one could be district Councillor at the age of 13.As mentioned above that??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.76.223 (talk • contribs) 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, you didn't approve my "Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021" on the talk page of primetime Emmy awards, citing "please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made". How can the official website of the television academy not be "reliable source"??? Besides, the changes I want to be made aren't mentioned in any other websites.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I'm really sorry that you consider me to be of little interest. I may not be famous or infamous but thankfully I have had an incredible life, maybe more so than those who have impressed you enough to be added to your list.
Your mistake with 1986 United States bombing of Libya page victim names
Hello Melmann,
I added an adequate description as to my change and put in the original content back but just changed the order of the victims names. Please don't change my edit because that would be unnecessary. You can read my reason for the edit if you want and if you disagree let me know and I hope we can come to an agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MozartFan5 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
You're explanation was incoherent and containing WP:FRINGE language. Please discuss the change on the talk page and seek consensus before implementing such changes. Melmann23:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm not used to Wikipedia moderation-and-discussion mechanisms, and my English (especially diplomatic) is not very good, but... we should fight for the Freedom together, shouldn't we? Thus, we need to escalate the situation around GeoGebra.
Hello. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia, however, your contribution was reverted because you did not provide a reliable source. The source you did provide does not count as a reliable source. On Wikipedia, any challenged claim has to have ideally an independent third party source. Self published or primary sources can SOMETIMES be used, in some limited capacity, but not in any way which may be seen as contentious, which your claim that copyright of GeoGebra is dubious definitely is. I have left a standard welcome message on your talk page which provides some links on relevant policies. We'd love to have your contributions to Wikipedia (including this one about GeoGebra) if you can support them with reliable sourcing. Cheers. Melmann08:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@46.164.218.115: Yes, I would personally accept OSI as reliable source, as they are independent body not directly affiliated with GeoGabra. That does not mean that your edit will not reverted, just that I won't revert it. I would also caution you against writing much more than saying that the license status is disputed, because your source does not say anything else, and using info from the bug report that your reliable source does not mention is likely to be original research or original synthesis. Thanks for engaging with Wikipedia rules, and please consider creating and account. We have lots of coverage of open source software (see Portal:Free and open-source software/Contribute) and we can always use help in improving it further. Let me know if you have any other questions, on this or any other Wikipedia-related topic. Melmann15:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic: I don't know if the slang works in your region...
Thank you for handing the edit request that you moved to Talk:Muhammad/Images. In particular, there was one line of the request: "I condom your this act..."[sic; emphasis added] I should not mock other people's issues with English, but I saw that and fought the urge to reply, "No, we will not rubber out the images." :) —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@C.Fred: I noticed that too and had a similar reaction! It took all the self-control I had not to add: 'But I do applaud your commitment to safe intercourse.' at the end of my message. I actually typed it out and then removed it. 😁 I'm glad somebody else got a chuckle out of that too. Melmann16:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Melmann--I am trying to find out how to eliminate a flag for "multiple issues" on the Sklenicka page. I made some edits to the entry and believe it currently reads like any other general author bio. It appears to have accurate citations, links, and a balanced presentation. Could it be possible to remove the templates, or let me know what the article still needs in order to make this happen? Thanks for your time! Backpacklibrarian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backpacklibrarian (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@Backpacklibrarian: Hi. The warning is there because the article has seen substantial editing by connected editors. Based on this history, your account seems very suspicious too since you've only ever edited Wikipedia relating to this one article, so your pattern of editing indicates that you might also be connected. You can just remove the warning yourself, and it may stick, but if it is reverted, I suggest you don't try any further and instead make a WP:EDITREQ for another editor to remove it. Melmann09:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi Melmann, you have edited controversial content in the article about J. K. Rowling. Please note that there have been extensive discussions about the article's content, currently linked at Talk:J. K. Rowling, that led to the state you have modified. This is not necessarily an argument against your change, as you may well have noticed an issue that others have not, but it is more likely that you have just made an edit against a wide consensus. If this turns out to be the case (for example if you are reverted by someone referring to an earlier discussion), please make sure to discuss your change on the talk page instead of starting an edit war by restoring changes others have objected to.
@ToBeFree: I appreciate the discretionary sanctions notice, but my change was stylistic in nature and did not seek to alter the actual content of the section. Presuming that my change is by default unhelpful without even managing to establish it is only stylistic in nature and choosing to assume that it is "likely [to be] an edit against a wide consensus" is in my opinion very close to failing to assume good faith from your fellow editors. Melmann11:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
As you have noticed, the assumption was true. And no, it wasn't an assumption of bad faith, not even close to it. My correct assumption was that your good-faith change, done with best intentions and a true expectation to improve the article, was likely to fail these expectations – as a surprise to you, but not to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Melmann. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dirty Pipes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
After discussion the RfC has been reorganized into "support", "oppose," and "neutral" subsections with numbered lists instead of * lists, and a "RfC discussion" subsection. A numbered list didn't work right with your two paragraph changes, they broke the numbering, so I changed the syntax of those paragraph changes from a new line and : to </p><p>. Is this acceptable? --Kizor01:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
It would've been manageable without fixing the problems I made for myself. But thank you, that makes it an "aye" from everyone I contacted, which is a load off my back. --Kizor04:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Robert Rubin
Hi there, last week you commented on the Robert Rubin Talk page, giving a thumbs up to my edit request and suggesting I implement it directly. As I explained there, out of an abundance of caution I don't make direct edits to pages where I have a financial COI. I appreciate that you're cool with it, but not all editors are. (I've seen warning tags added to pages where someone made even a very small edit.) In case you're willing to make the change, I had replied with very simple copy-and-paste markup language for the change. Would you be willing to take another look at it? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
What's wrong with @Skyring?
He seems like a pretentious prick. Does Wikipedia have some sort of internal mechanism to stop people calling you "horse crap" and "horseshit"? Also, why does Wikipedia cite the opinions of magazines and newspapers, but not try to have opinions of its own? Unless you're Herodotus, you selectively choose facts to support a thesis when you write nonfiction. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:F170:1242:C5B4:BAFA (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I thus consider Jojo (13 April 2024) to be a valid source and the reverts made by 47.154.30.23 in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heard_Well&oldid=1219712973 to be unjustified. If you have any critique against using the Jojo (13 April 2024) source I would like to hear them as 47.154.30.23 did not provide ample justification as to why Jojo (13 April 2024) cannot be considered a valid source for this article.
Hi Melmann, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Hi Melmann, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
This award is given in recognition to Melmann for accumulating at least 10 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd be happy to normally, but my WP:NPP permission has expired, and I do not at this time intend on seeking to have it extended, as my experience engaging with the NPP process has not been very positive. Melmann16:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cryptojacking. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2#Cryptojacking until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
