User talk:MelanieN/Archive 71
 | 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 65 | ← | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | → | Archive 75 |
Another indefinitely semi-protected page needing pending changes reset
Hi, would you be so kind as to reset the pending changes settings on the Jazz page? It is indefinitely semi-protected but PC settings were never reset. Thanks. Putwood (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Done You are right, the PC protection is no longer needed. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Full PP of Nominative–accusative language
Hi MelanieN! Regarding the edit history in the past two weeks, I accept the admonition about edit warring and the temporary full protection. But FWIW, there already is a non-canvassed third opinion from an active participant in the appropriate WikiProject (= WikiProject Linguistics). That fact that the other party systematically attributes talk posts by User:Uanfala to me should not nullify their contribution to the discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was surprised at the protection. In the discussion, three editors have expressed the opinion that the text should be removed, and it was only Kent Dominic who insisted it should stay and who kept re-inserting it. When I warned him he's at 3R, instead of reverting himself (which I was sort of hoping he would do), he went and asked for protection. Now, this protection isn't a big deal, we can wait until the two days are over and remove the text, but it's likely that granting it might have given this editor the impression that his own view has been vindicated and that can make him even more recalcitrant than he has been so far. – Uanfala (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Uanfala:This whole business of attempting to sandbag an editor for imputed motives relating to personal vindication was obstreperously obvious, professionally unbecoming, and wholly unproductive. I don't presume to know which sense of recalcitrance you intended but, to the extent it applies to me, it relates not to any personal vindication but to an aversion to acquiring the time-consuming nuances needed to cleanly accomplish what I've summarized here. If the inciting editor had accordingly used his Wikismarts at the outset (i.e. rather than merely deleting text that properly belongs somewhere in Wikipedia), I'd have thanked him for saving everyone this senseless trouble and for enabling my recalcitrant resistance to developing my Wikitool and Wikiprotocol familiarity. I indeed have other interests that take precedence. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- I apologise for my poor word choice, Kent Dominic. What I meant by "vindication" was just simply "demonstration that one is in the right". I haven't moved the text to another article because I don't believe it's a good treatment of the topic (it makes some far-fetched statements in the first part, and it omits mention of the crucial fact of hypercorrection in the second). – Uanfala (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Uanfala:Apology accepted, and no hard feelings. Yet, one further excoriation: the notion that I intend to demonstrate that I'm right is a mistaken presumption. I don't believe that one's actions, behaviors, or expressions of opinion necessarily signal the actor's belief in their respective rectitude. In fact, I admit was wrong to think that someone would catch my remarks from last year (which you can read here) and immediately try to fix the article's title, delete or re-direct the first paragraph, and take a scalpel to the faulty Sociolinguistics section. I'm amazed it's taken this long for anyone to attempt to improve it, albeit by deletion rather than revision. My repeated reversions in no way reflect the view that I think I'm right about the article; I've simply wanted to exercise the prerogative to keep the text there as long as possible to let someone (i.e. an editor who has more passion for sociolinguistics than I do) rectify the text - an impossibility if it's been made to disappear. I truly don't relish upsetting anyone's applecart, but any regret that I'd ordinarily have has been offset by my amusement regarding the childish taunting that's ensued. Really: no harm, no foul regarding all the hotheaded, sanctimonious attempts at condescension by one particular editor who seems to value ego and sloth above the praiseworthy-yet-faulty contribution of @Pablo-flores:. I suspected early on (namely from the "drive-by editor" brickbat) that reasonable contradictions would fall on the deaf ears of an audience that had either an unwillingness or incapability or just plain lethargy to work toward properly overhauling the article. The overhaul could have been done by now if a certain editor had resisted burdening himself with the needless stress that comes with taking academic disagreement personally. If he could only channel his energy a bit more constructively rather retorting with sticks and stones. Sad yet funny. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your notes, both of you. I admit that the wall-of-text discussion on fine points of linguistics was beyond my ability to follow it. But looking at the discussion more closely I can see that the edit warring is more one-sided than I appreciated. There does appear to be consensus to remove the section. I will have a word with Kent Dominic on the situation. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Uanfala:This whole business of attempting to sandbag an editor for imputed motives relating to personal vindication was obstreperously obvious, professionally unbecoming, and wholly unproductive. I don't presume to know which sense of recalcitrance you intended but, to the extent it applies to me, it relates not to any personal vindication but to an aversion to acquiring the time-consuming nuances needed to cleanly accomplish what I've summarized here. If the inciting editor had accordingly used his Wikismarts at the outset (i.e. rather than merely deleting text that properly belongs somewhere in Wikipedia), I'd have thanked him for saving everyone this senseless trouble and for enabling my recalcitrant resistance to developing my Wikitool and Wikiprotocol familiarity. I indeed have other interests that take precedence. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, MelanieN, and thanks for your diplomatic intervention. Please note that I haven't staked a position that favors retaining the text at issue. In fact, from 19 March 2019, I've expressed the view that the text does not seem fit for the article. More recently, I've not insisted that it should stay indefinitely. Instead I've argued that deleting it seems premature until the WikiProject (= WikiProject Linguistics) discussion is complete re. the article's proposed title change. Because of I'm unfamiliar with the Wikipedia protocol and tools for changing the article's name and migrating the disputed text (along with the entire first paragraph of the existing Nomintaive-accusative language page) under these or any other circumstances, I've encouraged the editors involved to do that in lieu of merely deleting the errant text. Absent their initiative, I'm left to seek your guidance concerning which protocols apply under circumstances that would entail (a) changing the current title from Nominative accusative language to Nominative-accusative alignment, and (b) redirecting users to a newly created/reconfigured Nominative-accusative language page that includes the text that's been ping-ponged. At least one of the other three editors involved suggested that very solution but unfortunately hasn't followed through upon notice that I don't know how to do it or whether it accords with pertinent protocols.--Kent Dominic 16:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for your prompt reply, Kent Dominic. I understand that you and possibly others feel that the outcome of that move discussion will influence the resolution here. Wikipedia policy offers a general answer: consensus. The other three users think it should be removed pending that outcome. You think it should be retained. Conclusion: in the interim, leave it out. But also, start a new discussion, at the article's talk page or the WikiProject talk page where the move discussion is taking place, about how to proceed once the issue there is resolved. (BTW I'm puzzled by your rationale (if I understand you) that even though you believe the section ultimately does not belong in this article, you will insist on retaining it in the meantime. That almost seems like WP:POINT behavior, although I'm sure you don't mean it that way.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- If standing on principle that editors should endeavor to retain one another's good faith contributions (incl. those that are tangentially related to a given article, as one of the editors involved conceded) violates the WP:POINT standards, I suppose I'm guilty. My bigger offenses here include (a) not being rightfully acquainted with a culture whose rules enable Argumentum_ad_populum, and (b) having too much patience for others who jump to the conclusions that whatever motivates their actions and behaviors similarly motivates others who evidence analogous actions and behaviors. Look here for an example of my characteristic
disruptive tendenciesindomitable sense of faith in the human spirit of decency. Kent Dominic 17:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs)- Consensus isn’t entirely a head count; the merit of the argument, and its basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, is important. The policies and guidelines are also the result of consensus, by the way. WP:Consensus is the only way Wikipedia can possibly work. The alternatives are either a top-down bureaucratic structure where all edits are judged by - who exactly? - or else a complete jungle where edit warring is constant. And Wikipedia DOES work. It has worked for years and has produced a remarkable, free compendium of human knowledge. Here an insight I like: "The trouble with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." [1] -- MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- If standing on principle that editors should endeavor to retain one another's good faith contributions (incl. those that are tangentially related to a given article, as one of the editors involved conceded) violates the WP:POINT standards, I suppose I'm guilty. My bigger offenses here include (a) not being rightfully acquainted with a culture whose rules enable Argumentum_ad_populum, and (b) having too much patience for others who jump to the conclusions that whatever motivates their actions and behaviors similarly motivates others who evidence analogous actions and behaviors. Look here for an example of my characteristic
- BTW just a comment about writing comments: I have noticed that when you write a comment, you sign it manually, or possibly using some kind of tool, with your signature, date, and time. But that does not provide clickable links for your name, like my signature and the signatures of other people you see here. You'll notice that a bot identified your note here as "unsigned" and added the full signature. If you would sign by typing four tildes, ~~~~ , or by clicking on the "signature" icon that appears at the top of the writing page in many versions of Wikipedia, that would automatically produce a datestamp and a signature which is fuller and more useful to others. Just a suggestion, it's your choice. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I don't know how to resolve this situation. When I click on the "Sign your posts" icon at the top of the window, two dashes and four tildes appear; the bottom icon inserts four tildes without dashes. What to do? Kent Dominic 17:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs)
- Here's my go at doing it manually: Kent Dominic 17:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs)
- And the bot still thinks it's unsigned. Either of the results you describe - two dashes and four tildes, or four tildes without dashes - should result in the automatically generated signature. What happens if you go ahead and hit "publish changes" with either of those in place at the end of your note? Here's my two dashes and four tildes: -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Old dog. New trick. More thanks @Wugapodes:! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Here's my go at doing it manually: Kent Dominic 17:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs)
Corona-Terror
'Plonker'
Hi,
I saw the 'Twat' drama at ANI and just had to ask; would that also happen if one was to use that word? Would one be one to use that word here? You know me; one of these days I'll use it innocently and it'll be taken amiss, just like 'Twat' was in that incident. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Twat" would certainly be taken amiss if it was used in any way to refer to or address a female. I'm not familiar with its usage in any other sense, but apparently it is sometimes used in the UK as a generic insult. I think you would be wise to avoid using it at Wikipedia. I am not familiar with the word "plonker" so you'll have to ask someone else about that. It is certainly true that certain words sometimes have a different "shock value" between our two countries. As the saying goes, we are two nations divided by a common language. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
apparently it is sometimes used in the UK as a generic insult
It is. As a Brit, I can't recall ever hearing/seeing the word 'Twat' used to refer to a woman's genitals (don't get me wrong; I'm sure that usage exists, perhaps even in the UK), but have seen and heard it used as a synonym for 'idiot' countless times, and therefore have no doubt whatsoever that that's what Davey2010 meant by it. Have you read our article on the subject? The word 'plonker' is a British slang word that also means 'idiot' (as in stupid), but can also mean a man's penis (see what I'm getting at here?) If someone called me a plonker, my mind would jump straight to the 'idiot' meaning, and the other one probably wouldn't even occur to me. I can speak only for myself however. Adam9007 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)- Well, I would have had no doubt that's what Davey meant by it either, except that he said he expected to get blocked for saying it. As for what you should say or not say, all I can advise is that at an international encyclopedia we need to be sensitive of other cultures. For example, we should not make a disrespectful joke about Allah even though it wouldn't bother us, or use the n-word even if it is acceptable in our own culture. We need to keep in mind that for words like "gay" or "queer," a new more common meaning has replaced the original one. And so on. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. that article about "twat" is totally inadequate. It needs to have an American point of view added. I will work on that when I have time. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- In Canada's view, Americans oversexualize "twat", "pussy", "dick", "knob" and "asshole", but Brits overtrivialize "the C-word" and have too many ball words, not enough Z-words. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that insight. But what are Z-words? (You can whisper if you want. No one else will hear.) -- MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Fantasize, fetishize, formalize, moisturize, materialize and maize. They say fantasise, fetishise, formalise, wet, form and corn. Barbarians! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, now I realize what you mean. Do they also oversexualise and overtrivialise? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you didn't know, contrary to popular belief, ize/ization spellings (as long as it's from Greek -izo) are not Americanisms, and are in fact perfectly acceptable in British English. Adam9007 (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I see. So -ize is acceptable, particularly in academic and scientific writing, "in contrast to the predominant use of -ise endings in current British English." (Quote marks so that I don't plagiarize.) BTW "-ize" is not an Americanism; I'm sure our Canadian friends would object to that characterization. (Hope you don't mind a little teasing from a friend.) -- MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Here on Wikipedia, Oxford spelling is actually treated as a separate Engvar ({{British English Oxford spelling}}). I don't think it was until after World War 2 that ise/isation spellings became common, but I could be wrong. Adam9007 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- English is kind of a crazy language, isn't it? So many variations! "An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks, he makes some other Englishman despise him." --Henry Higgins -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- What vexes me is that ignorance seems to be so overwhelmingly dominant, I sometimes feel like I'm fighting a losing battle in being correct. Only the other day over on Fandom, I made some corrections (not Oxford spelling; it was another less-well known rule regarding spelling), only to be reverted on the grounds that it was American English (even though it wasn't and isn't!) The particular Wiki I'm talking about has a rule that says you must use British English for everything at all times, no ifs, no buts. I actually had to explain the rule to them. Adam9007 (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- And what's funny about that is that according to its Wikipedia article, Fandom is based in the United States! To me the problem is not which of many acceptable variants of English someone uses; it's the apparent loss of any attempt to use any kind of normal grammar or spelling in places like Twitter and the internet. I don't know about the UK, but in the US in recent decades they have pretty much stopped even trying to teach grammar in school. That's because the teachers don't know it either. And that was before the internet came along to utterly destroy any semblance of "correct English". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Fandom" became necessary in the States after "fanaticism" became "a cloud which threatens democracy and freedom". You don't want to be put on a watchlist for religiously following a feminine vampire slayer or friendly rainbow pony. Some bronies and scoobies wind up on the FBI's radar, of course, but for the normal domestic reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Educated people here frequently complain about incorrect spelling and grammar too. I actually felt anxious making those corrections on Fandom, even though I knew for a fact I was right. Like I said; it feels like I'm fighting a losing battle. The Apostrophe Protection Society has already admitted defeat, so what hope do the rest of us have? Adam9007 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Apostrophe Protection Society," I love it! (Or should I say "Its about time"? 0;-D ) You and I are alike in that we understand correct usage and strive to practice it in our daily lives. The difference between us is that you try to correct it when you see someone make a mistake. Whereas I just roll my eyes and keep my mouth shut when I hear someone supposedly well educated say "John and me want to wish you a happy birthday" or "between you and I". As for the apostrophe, that became a lost cause when the autocorrect on our phones began inserting an apostrophe into "its" whether or not it belonged. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
we understand correct usage and strive to practice it in our daily lives
Funny you should say that; my corrections on that Fandom Wiki were to do with one of the words you used there (I'm not sure how much I can say without inadvertently outing myself. Also, I swear I've seen someone there whose name I recognise here, and I'm pretty sure they're the same person). Adam9007 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)- I recently "corrected" Battle Cat, leading me to "recognise" you as not just a barbarian, but the rightful hare to the Eternian throne. That's right! Canadians spell it "hare"! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hare to the throne? That's funny - Americans spell heir "air"! -- MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Glad you smelled what I was cooking there, Sorceress! I mean, uh, Melanie. Was conflicted about how subtle to hint it, not sure Brits "get" Looney Tunes. Aware of it, probably, but not like us New World maroons, with our maize syrup cereal and neverending commercial breaks "woven into the fiber", as they say. Good times, those toons. America should totally elect a popular cartoon character in 2024, I saw it almost work on a British show I'm 99.99% confident absolutely no Americans saw once before. But yeah, that's a problem for another thread, we need to work together and save Oxford from its own ravages of time! How'dyall spell "ber*erk" out there, boy? Can I call you "boy" if I'm 38 and white? Probably should've asked the second thing first, "huh"? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hare to the throne? That's funny - Americans spell heir "air"! -- MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I recently "corrected" Battle Cat, leading me to "recognise" you as not just a barbarian, but the rightful hare to the Eternian throne. That's right! Canadians spell it "hare"! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Apostrophe Protection Society," I love it! (Or should I say "Its about time"? 0;-D ) You and I are alike in that we understand correct usage and strive to practice it in our daily lives. The difference between us is that you try to correct it when you see someone make a mistake. Whereas I just roll my eyes and keep my mouth shut when I hear someone supposedly well educated say "John and me want to wish you a happy birthday" or "between you and I". As for the apostrophe, that became a lost cause when the autocorrect on our phones began inserting an apostrophe into "its" whether or not it belonged. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- And what's funny about that is that according to its Wikipedia article, Fandom is based in the United States! To me the problem is not which of many acceptable variants of English someone uses; it's the apparent loss of any attempt to use any kind of normal grammar or spelling in places like Twitter and the internet. I don't know about the UK, but in the US in recent decades they have pretty much stopped even trying to teach grammar in school. That's because the teachers don't know it either. And that was before the internet came along to utterly destroy any semblance of "correct English". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- What vexes me is that ignorance seems to be so overwhelmingly dominant, I sometimes feel like I'm fighting a losing battle in being correct. Only the other day over on Fandom, I made some corrections (not Oxford spelling; it was another less-well known rule regarding spelling), only to be reverted on the grounds that it was American English (even though it wasn't and isn't!) The particular Wiki I'm talking about has a rule that says you must use British English for everything at all times, no ifs, no buts. I actually had to explain the rule to them. Adam9007 (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- English is kind of a crazy language, isn't it? So many variations! "An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks, he makes some other Englishman despise him." --Henry Higgins -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Here on Wikipedia, Oxford spelling is actually treated as a separate Engvar ({{British English Oxford spelling}}). I don't think it was until after World War 2 that ise/isation spellings became common, but I could be wrong. Adam9007 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I see. So -ize is acceptable, particularly in academic and scientific writing, "in contrast to the predominant use of -ise endings in current British English." (Quote marks so that I don't plagiarize.) BTW "-ize" is not an Americanism; I'm sure our Canadian friends would object to that characterization. (Hope you don't mind a little teasing from a friend.) -- MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you didn't know, contrary to popular belief, ize/ization spellings (as long as it's from Greek -izo) are not Americanisms, and are in fact perfectly acceptable in British English. Adam9007 (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, now I realize what you mean. Do they also oversexualise and overtrivialise? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Fantasize, fetishize, formalize, moisturize, materialize and maize. They say fantasise, fetishise, formalise, wet, form and corn. Barbarians! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that insight. But what are Z-words? (You can whisper if you want. No one else will hear.) -- MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- In Canada's view, Americans oversexualize "twat", "pussy", "dick", "knob" and "asshole", but Brits overtrivialize "the C-word" and have too many ball words, not enough Z-words. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. that article about "twat" is totally inadequate. It needs to have an American point of view added. I will work on that when I have time. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I would have had no doubt that's what Davey meant by it either, except that he said he expected to get blocked for saying it. As for what you should say or not say, all I can advise is that at an international encyclopedia we need to be sensitive of other cultures. For example, we should not make a disrespectful joke about Allah even though it wouldn't bother us, or use the n-word even if it is acceptable in our own culture. We need to keep in mind that for words like "gay" or "queer," a new more common meaning has replaced the original one. And so on. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there another way to spell berserk? And no, you can't call me "boy" if I'm a girl. As for the Canadians, IMO one of your best contributions to the language is "eh?" My grandfather was Canadian and I associate that expression fondly with him. Speaking of "How'dyall", IMO "you all" is one of America's best contributions to the language. Pronounced and sometimes spelled y'all, of course. I am not a southerner but I use it all the time. A great improvement over "you guys" which is the principal alternative. (Or "you lot" which I believe our Brit friends would say.) I don't, however, go as far as my southern friends, who say "Shall we come over to y'all's house?" -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Renowned Americans Berzerk (video game) and John Nord say there's another way. And yeah, no. California girls aren't "out there", just "like, far out". I was trying to address Adam there, but not as He-Man. He's not Oxford, but relatively close. I don't say "y'all" in real life, sometimes "yous all mother...s" if I'm drunk. Elegant Northern drunk, not sloppy Southern squashed, mind you. White Southern gentleman probably should never call even tanned free folk "boy". Bad "optics", auditorily. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Pretty much nobody should ever call a grown man "boy". Of any color, but especially of the tan variety. Them's fighting words, and rightly so. That word was used to oppress people of the "wrong" color for more than a century. As for "berserk": during the 1960s when there was all kinds of activism, peacenik and Free Speech and Leave Vietnam Now and such, going on at the college campuses, the headquarters of a lot of it was at the University of California, Berkeley - giving the town the nickname "Berserkeley" which is still sometimes attached to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Aye, more than a century in American history. But Canada is Ahead by a Century and Britain has civic institutions that predate Robin Hood. That's why I was trying to ask the yob, the lad, the non-Prince Tongan Barbarian. I already know how Hollywood roles roll, I "stole" your country's satellite feeds for decades to amuse the poor up in "The Real CA".
- I appreciate your concerns, though, so will bite my tongue unless I know the fellow editor can't legally sip gin in his own neighbourhood/neighborhood/hood. I mean, regardless/irregardless of current bar/pub/shithole occupancy restrictions. Can't rightly call a tannish young male contributor "man" if he's twelve, now can I, esteemed chica brother? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- The fellow editor has not chosen to reveal their age, or their skin tone, or for that matter their gender, although their name is suggestive. If one wishes to talk to someone, that's what ping is for. Anyhow we have probably run this thread into the ground without any help from them. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. @Adam9007: Throw us down the rope, you suggestive intriguing such-and-such! We're either getting out of this hole or tying a bow on this trying, ropes are flexible. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've lost track here - what is it you want Adam to say? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- How he spells "berzerk" and whether he minds "boy", in a non-sexual, non-racial and non-familial sense ("he" since his page does tell age and gender). No pressure, though, and no penalty for not saying, or saying something else. This being a virtual pit, I could just feed my blob a licorice jellybean, turn it into a ladder and take off, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're right, he does. Trouting myself for not checking. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Don't do it, bud, to err is human! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't mind. I get to eat the trout afterward. Preferably with almonds and lemon juice. And a nice white wine. Hey, you made me hungry! -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind a big crunchy lemon in a bowl o' brown meself, m'lanie, perchance some fish flakes sprinkled on top, chased down like a fox with only the finest moose juice. Mmmm...virtual indigestion! How about we "go Dutch", but nice and innocent-like? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ummm, fish flakes? Really? Maybe I’ll bring chips and salsa instead. But I will definitely go for some of that moose juice. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, a doctor who plays a toady on TV said they're good for what ails the Americas. It was either flakes, tank cleaner or scales, better to eat something and not need it than need it and don't. Anyway, I have an overcooked pinecone burning a hole in my pocket, curbside pickup regret, you ever tried organic boreal pouchmeal, User:Adam9007? Alternatively, wanna chaperone a business dinner? Something tells me "a girl is sketched" by my table norms and customs. Women, eh! Always eavesdropping after the ping, amirite? Seriously though, Moosehead and Keith's are literally worlds apart and who here's seen Toad Patrol? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Huh? I've no idea what you're talking about.... Adam9007 (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, sorry to bother you. Thanks for a wonderful dinner, Mrs. N. Time for this boy to fly! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Huh? I've no idea what you're talking about.... Adam9007 (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, a doctor who plays a toady on TV said they're good for what ails the Americas. It was either flakes, tank cleaner or scales, better to eat something and not need it than need it and don't. Anyway, I have an overcooked pinecone burning a hole in my pocket, curbside pickup regret, you ever tried organic boreal pouchmeal, User:Adam9007? Alternatively, wanna chaperone a business dinner? Something tells me "a girl is sketched" by my table norms and customs. Women, eh! Always eavesdropping after the ping, amirite? Seriously though, Moosehead and Keith's are literally worlds apart and who here's seen Toad Patrol? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ummm, fish flakes? Really? Maybe I’ll bring chips and salsa instead. But I will definitely go for some of that moose juice. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind a big crunchy lemon in a bowl o' brown meself, m'lanie, perchance some fish flakes sprinkled on top, chased down like a fox with only the finest moose juice. Mmmm...virtual indigestion! How about we "go Dutch", but nice and innocent-like? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't mind. I get to eat the trout afterward. Preferably with almonds and lemon juice. And a nice white wine. Hey, you made me hungry! -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Don't do it, bud, to err is human! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're right, he does. Trouting myself for not checking. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- How he spells "berzerk" and whether he minds "boy", in a non-sexual, non-racial and non-familial sense ("he" since his page does tell age and gender). No pressure, though, and no penalty for not saying, or saying something else. This being a virtual pit, I could just feed my blob a licorice jellybean, turn it into a ladder and take off, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've lost track here - what is it you want Adam to say? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. @Adam9007: Throw us down the rope, you suggestive intriguing such-and-such! We're either getting out of this hole or tying a bow on this trying, ropes are flexible. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- The fellow editor has not chosen to reveal their age, or their skin tone, or for that matter their gender, although their name is suggestive. If one wishes to talk to someone, that's what ping is for. Anyhow we have probably run this thread into the ground without any help from them. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Pretty much nobody should ever call a grown man "boy". Of any color, but especially of the tan variety. Them's fighting words, and rightly so. That word was used to oppress people of the "wrong" color for more than a century. As for "berserk": during the 1960s when there was all kinds of activism, peacenik and Free Speech and Leave Vietnam Now and such, going on at the college campuses, the headquarters of a lot of it was at the University of California, Berkeley - giving the town the nickname "Berserkeley" which is still sometimes attached to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you recently ECP'ed Thirty-fifth government of Israel and I'm just wondering why. The page has no content that is under ARBPIA. If there was vandalism on the page, and I do see that there was some vandalism, then shouldn't the page be either IP protected or just temporarily protected? Isn't ECP protection just for those under ARBCOM sanctions? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I also removed the ARBPIA template from the talk page because I don't think it applies to the article because nothing in that article is under ARBPIA, it's about the 35th government of Israel and doesn't mention the IP conflict at all. We shouldn't be restricting editors if not needed. If needed, we can restrict IP addresses and then work our way up the restrictions. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. I did it because the sanction says "broadly interpreted," but I am open to the idea that it doesn't really apply to this article, at least not at this time. The article did and likely still does need protection, but I will reduce it to time-limited semi-protection and remove it from the ARBPIA list. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- MelanieN, Thanks, I think the article is fine as is. It probably won't get too many views now that it's off the main page and it has a few watchers. If it does have vandals, I assume it'll be generic vandalism, not IP related. But it can always be escalated if necessary. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I gave it 10 days semi-protection. Thanks for the input. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- MelanieN, Thanks, I think the article is fine as is. It probably won't get too many views now that it's off the main page and it has a few watchers. If it does have vandals, I assume it'll be generic vandalism, not IP related. But it can always be escalated if necessary. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. I did it because the sanction says "broadly interpreted," but I am open to the idea that it doesn't really apply to this article, at least not at this time. The article did and likely still does need protection, but I will reduce it to time-limited semi-protection and remove it from the ARBPIA list. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Chuck Grassley
Hi, I noticed on Chuck Grassley that when you semi-protected the page, in the edit summary you indicated that you intended to make the protection indefinite but in practice you only made it one year. Is there an error? If so, can you change the protection to indefinite? Sutfeld (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking, and you are right. The article had been under indefinite PC protection, which was proving to be inadequate, and I intended to replace it with indefinite semi-protection. I must have mis-clicked somehow. I will fix it. Good catch. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
In defense of Activist
MelanieN, I saw that you put a warning on Activist's talk page here [[2]] (time stamp 3:32, 21 May). I think Activist restored the material here [[3]] (time stamp 17:06, 20 May) before you posted to the talk page here [[4]] (time stamp 19:06, 20 May). Their other related restoration was here [[5]] and is also before your talk page comment. From what I can see it doesn't appear that they ignored your comment. I appreciate you offering a voice of reason on the talk page (even if some of that reason was to tell me to cool it). Contrary to what Activist has said, I'm very open to discussing the edits but I also think that many of these have been problematic. Is there a place where this could be raised as an issue? I thought about ANI but honestly, I think they are acting in good faith and I don't think ANI is the correct venue for "help a good faith editor get a better understanding of WEIGHT and respect BRD even when they don't agree. Anyway, this is my long way of saying I think your warning on their talk page was in error. Springee (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. I misread the time stamps. I will modify my comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. Springee: Your final link here - the one labeled as 20 - is not to the Rick Bright article. It is to Alex Skarlatos. For some reason you seem to keep linking those two. But your point remains and it was generous of you to come to Activist's defense here. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks MelanieN. I mentioned the Alek Skarlatos edit in part because it was a recent revert and I wanted to clarify that it was also prior to the warning. The other issue is that I think it reflects the general type of edit that Activist was making that I think is problematic. Again, I think they are trying to edit in good faith and not all of their edits are problematic. The Rick Bright edit was just one example of quite a few similar edits they have made. For what it's worth I think they would probably do some good work if they took a few suggestions to heart. Springee (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. Springee: Your final link here - the one labeled as 20 - is not to the Rick Bright article. It is to Alex Skarlatos. For some reason you seem to keep linking those two. But your point remains and it was generous of you to come to Activist's defense here. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Could you offer a suggestion as to how best handle this? I'm sure my initial approach with Activist didn't help but this sort of edit on an article that was on my watch list was what got my attention in the first place. Here we have virtually the same text added to three article. [[6]], [[7]], [[8]]. It's not clear the material is really DUE in any of the three articles. In the two candidate articles only a summary of their performance or impact to their campaign seems worth mentioning. In the case of the Kansas race most of the article is stats and the like yet here we have a section of prose that reads like it was taken from a story. As others have said the writing style seems to intended to elicit an emotional response rather than just inform. What makes this hard is the behavior spans many articles. I don't quite feel like ANI is the correct place because I think it was all added in good faith. This is more like a case where you would want someone to hold the editor's hand to help them understand how to write in an impartial tone and what is DUE and not. Anyway, if I comment I'm sure I will get more accusations of hounding etc. That said, I really would like to clean some of this up. Do you have any suggestions as to how to go about doing it (it being getting eyes on this to help stop this sort of poor editing going forward and/or cleaning things up). Thanks. Springee (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Kushner coronavirus response
Do you want to take a stab at rewriting content in the lead to Kushner's bio about K's role in the Trump adm's coronavirus response? My version was removed[9] and I can't restore it in the absence of consensus. This is the section of the article that covers his role in the coronavirus response.[10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Robert O'Brien
Hi, Could you revisit your idea of retitling Robert_C._O'Brien_(attorney) to "Robert C. O'Brien" without a disambiguator? Could also use an independent weigh-in on discussion in [[11]] about "Attendance at segregated college in South Africa." Stope (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Stope, and thanks for the note. Interesting question. By “revisit” you mean to take another look into making the title be “Robert C. O’Brien” without disambiguation? I agree that (lawyer) is a completely inadequate description of his career or notability, although it may have been OK back in 2008 when the article was created. IMO there are two possible changes: either come up with a better disambiguator, or declare him to be the WP:Primary topic for Robert C. O’Brien while the author keeps the DAB as (author). With of course a hatnote at the primary article pointing to the author. I see that several people favored the Primary Topic approach at the time, but IMO such a bold move needs a little more transparency. I will post a Requested Move discussion and see if it flies. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Alert
Zee world has been vandalized Tbiw (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Excuse me? It had been vandalized over the past couple of days, so I gave it a week's semi-protection. It hasn't been edited since.
- If you are referring to the removal of your one edit there,[12] which you made last week, it was correctly removed. Your edit wasn't vandalism, but neither was removing it; it wasn't proper content for the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay that means I am safe. Thanks Tbiw (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- But the world is still a dangerous place, so don't forget to bring a towel. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, a person should always know where their towel is.. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- So Towel Day began on May 25, 2001, and "Crippled Summer" debuted on April 28, 2010, and something came to Zee World on May 28, 2020. That must mean...oh my g*wd. A new day shall pass at midnight on April 25, 2031! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, a person should always know where their towel is.. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- As an aside that isn't worth its weight in section, I had the police called on me for a fake bill once, but only because I eventually called the cashier's bluff (it was all the money I had, had to try). One cop showed up a few minutes later and laid some brutal truth on me about how my money was gone forever and if I wanted my junk food, I'd need to replenish my funds the old-fashioned way. So I kicked his ass and stole his wallet! OK, fine, I went away pouting to the least-threatening loanshark I know. But I learned a valuable lesson about how counterfeit money makes victims of us all sometimes, and the only way to stop the cycle is to educate small businesses on why they should accept all twenties, regardless of colour, shape or the face on the obverse. We would all be so much richer for it if cashiers, strippers and tellers would stop being so judgmental all the time, sheesh! Anyway, tell that vague legitimate organization you worked for that I can get them their tenner back tenfold if they leave but one toonie beneath the third "O" of the Hollywood sign at midnight on November 1, 2048. Don't worry, I'm good for it! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, at least you weren't arrested. That in itself says something considering the current situation. As for your suggestion re fake money: strippers would probably agree - after all it would break the mood if they stopped to examine the legitimacy of bills tucked into their wherever. But tellers would never agree. They are SUPPOSED to tell, aren't they? 0;-D And if I had a toonie I'd keep it. Much prettier than boring American money. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Really breaks the mood when loonies and toonies rain down on the strippers, though. Even if carefully deposited one at a time into the seemingly correct slot, hell hath no fury like it. Tellers can also be tight-lipped; I once politely inquired about how much money was in the vault and when might be a good time to verify the balance, next thing I remember, I'm in Arizona wearing a pink nightgown and there's $25 worth of silver in my "secret hiding spot". Cost me twice as much just to extract it! State jail doctors are the real highway robbers, even if my account is highly dubious. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, at least you weren't arrested. That in itself says something considering the current situation. As for your suggestion re fake money: strippers would probably agree - after all it would break the mood if they stopped to examine the legitimacy of bills tucked into their wherever. But tellers would never agree. They are SUPPOSED to tell, aren't they? 0;-D And if I had a toonie I'd keep it. Much prettier than boring American money. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose HistoryBuff14 might want to consider my testimony more than you do. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
| | 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 65 | ← | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | → | Archive 75 |