User talk:MelanieN/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Second Italo-Ethiopian War

G'day Melanie, hope you are well. Please be aware I have adjusted the semi protection you applied to Second Italo-Ethiopian War, upgrading the protection to extended confirmed. Apologies if I have trodden on your toes with this. My reasoning is that there appears to be ongoing issues with sockpuppetry on the article. Happy to discuss further with you, and self revert, if you feel this is unnecessary. Anyway, have a nice day. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

AustralianRupert: Thank you! In fact I had been thinking along the same lines, and had suggested the exact same thing to Favonian who has had earlier dealings with this sockmaster - but Favonian appears to be offline right now. This was now the second time since semi-protection that a sock created an account, made 10 edits, waited four days, and then attacked the same (semi-protected) article with same edits. Extended confirmed protection is the perfect solution. FYI I believe the likely sockmaster is User:Krajoyn. --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Melanie. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do people...

Just FYI, I wasn't trying to mock your edit summary with mine. Just a weird coincidence, hadn't seen yours yet. But seriously, why? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Template help

Hi. Ran into something that I can't figure out. While doing my dab grunt work, I came across this article: Christian Solidarity Party (as well as 2 others with the exact same issue). As you can see their is a dab in the infobox for Elections in Ireland, which should be corrected to Elections in the Republic of Ireland. However, I can't find the actual link when I go to edit the page. I'm a bit flummoxed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I was bored so I looked into that. All three of those links are constructed using the infobox's |country= parameter. Change that from Ireland to the Republic of Ireland and you will change all three links accordingly. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Beautiful, Mandruss - thanks for the help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Also found out that you can use the "|elections_dab1 = " to force that dab to look at the target you want it to, regardless of the country parameter. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this, Mandruss! And OneL, that's the beauty of asking someone who has talk page stalkers: if the person you asked isn't available or doesn't know (not gonna admit which was the case this time), there's probably somebody else reading the page who does. I love my talk page stalkers. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Las Vegas Massacre - Title

Not sure if you saw the press conference in the last half hour, but they have announced that the official name of the incident will be just "1 October". I have submitted a move request on the article's talk page accordingly for "1 October Shooting" as the official name redirects to "October 1". CycloneGU (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll respond there. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

In reply to the thoughts before it closed, I understand you are trying to be neutral here (I noticed you are an administrator, of course LOL). I still maintain the presumption that the name given to the page should include the official name in some way as that's what people are probably going to look up. At the very least, a hatnote should be left on October 1 over time linking to the article, as again, the official name of the incident will be "1 October", which redirects there. If a different name sticks, so be it, but some kind of reference to it is still needed. =) CycloneGU (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

CycloneGU: The suggestions "1 October" and "1 October shooting" will be among the choices offered when I set up a discussion of possible names. As for the Wikipedia page October 1, this evert is already listed there in chronological order; IMO that's all it needs as far as that page is concerned. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A coupla things aside from WP:COMMONNAME. First, looks like the name 1 October was coined by the Clark County Chairman. Well, to residents of Clark County, I expect that date will ring a bell for a very long time. But, this isn’t the Clark County encyclopedia. Besides, I would imagine if I were the CC Chairman, I’d also try to get Las Vegas or Mandalay out of the name as 44% of the Southern NV workforce is in tourism. Valiant effort doomed to failure. Secondly, there are only 366 days. Sad to say, we’ll run out of names pretty quickly if we name these events solely by the month and day. In fact, there is a 50/50 chance of a duplicate in 23 events (See Birthday problem). Thirdly, I can’t imagine that readers will be searching for 1 October looking for this event. Objective3000 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not against keeping Las Vegas in the name. I just think it should be combined with the "official" name, that's all. ;) I'm not from Vegas and my tourism isn't affected by this. But regardless, I'll let the name discussion to come decide what happens; it's possible the official name might just be mentioned as part of the article prose, and if that's what consensus decides, so be it. CycloneGU (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you really think "please do not get into extended or threaded discussion here" would stick? Silly woman. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Valium

Mixing valium with alcohol is bad enough, but see this NYT article from 2015. That link is just for your general knowledge, not for any Wikipedia article that I can remotely think of. Not. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's fair to say that Valium, and benzodiazepines generally, are over-prescribed in the geriatric population. And of course one shouldn't mix sedatives with alcohol. But to imply that 50 Valium tablets per year somehow caused a methodically planned and executed mass murder is pretty foolish, regardless of whether alcohol was involved as well, and betrays a pretty deep ignorance of the subject. I understand the desire to find some sort of rational-sounding explanation for this event, but I'm not sure why getting this factoid into the article has assumed such urgency. Is the idea to focus legislative momentum and popular attention on benzos (rather than, say, the ability to legally stockpile an infinite number of assault weapons)? As a wise woman once said, no matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to keep up. MastCell ^Talk 05:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

To assume that the prescription did not authorize any refills, or more generally that he bought only 50 pills in 2017, seems a bit of a leap. And if the FBI releases information that he took more than 50 Valium pills in 2017, then I ‘d think it would be pretty “foolish” and “ignorant” to insist otherwise, especially given how addictive it is, and given that he also got a Valium prescription in 2016. That he did take Valium has been very widely reported in very reliable sources, along with a lot of other information that seems worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (e.g. divorced twice, took cruise ship to Middle East recently, had father who was on FBI 10 most wanted, used device called a “bump stock”, none of which says anything about “legislative momentum”). The cynicism apparently goes both ways here. See also.. In my personal opinion, many doctors are little better than drug pushers, and the opioid crisis is a case in point. Well-intentioned drug-pushers, of course. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

To assume that the prescription did not authorize any refills, or more generally that he bought only 50 pills in 2017, seems a bit of a leap. Actually, the Nevada reporting system is very strong and it is not about doctors writing prescriptions; it is about pharmacies dispensing the medicine. Every time he purchased Valium in Nevada, it would be in the system.[1] I personally doubt that he could even have carried out his disciplined, focused, eyes-wide-open, carefully planned and carried out actions if he was on Valium. IMO (WP:OR) this "let's blame Valium!" approach is similar to the "let's blame Dungeons and Dragons!" hysteria of a few years ago whenever a teen or young person committed a murder. Convenient, but unsupported by evidence. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. Most of the other stuff you cited as "worthy of inclusion" - divorced twice, used a bump stock, father a wanted criminal - is already in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I know it’s already in, which makes exclusion of Valium all the more noticeable. If he played Dungeons & Dragons according to lots of sources, I’d favor including that too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And it’s more of a leap to suggest a connection between Valium and this event. Americans take too many prescription drugs in general. But, any problems related to benzos pale in comparison to opiates; and the common result from mixing Valium and alcohol is sleep. Such drugs are enormously popular. Valium was the first drug to hit $1 billion in sales in a year. The new leader in that field is Xanax, with over one prescription per second. So, where are all the shootings caused by these drugs that would lead anyone to believe Valium was behind this shooting? Valium became so popular among housewives that, shortly after its introduction, the Rolling Stones wrote [2]. Objective3000 (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Asteroids are very dangerous, not because they all are, but because of what one asteroid does to our planet every once in a blue moon. As for “mother’s little helper”, I don’t think Mr. Jagger was being entirely complimentary, nor is it likely that this drug invariably improved family dynamics. I go for vitamins and innocuous naturopathic stuff as much as possible, though I suspect Mastcell would recommend a much stronger medicine for my foolishness, ignorance, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk)

As you say: once in a blue moon. I don’t see why we would suggest something so infrequent there don’t appear to be any related examples, whether they be Valium-related mass shootings or asteroid extinction events in Las Vegas. But, I’ll stop bothering Melanie with this here. Objective3000 (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If Valium only caused disaster this one time, then maybe its use should not be altered. I’ll leave Melanie in peace now too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Objective3000 and Anythingyouwant: Hey, stick around and continue your interesting conversation. What else are user talk pages for? (Well, Wikipedia probably thinks they're only for Wikipedia purposes, but we know better.) If nothing else, you need to explain what you mean by If Valium only caused disaster this one time. What other times has Valium caused disaster? If you are talking about that Hinckley quote - that's the kind of thing that defense psychiatrists are paid to say. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Studies have shown that Valium can cause aggression, that its effects can be magnified by alcohol which should not be consumed, and that older people are more at risk. So one would expect the results of those studies to be reflected in the real world. I’m no expert, but results of valid studies usually are reflected in real world circumstances outside the studies. By the way, we now know he was taking Valium since 2013, and that his prescribing doctor was on yearly retainer. See Glover, Scott and Lat, Kyung. “Exclusive: Vegas killer described his unusual habits in 2013 testimony”, CNN (October 9, 2017). Anyway, I’m going out to lunch now with someone. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat. black, bloody, or tarry stools; coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds; severe nausea, or stomach pain; fever lasting longer than 3 days; swelling, or pain lasting longer than 10 days; or hearing problems, ringing in your ears. Heartburn; drowsiness; or headache. Bleeding in your stomach or intestines. Alcohol may increase your risk of stomach bleeding. Overdose can result in rapid breathing (hyperventilation), dehydration, double vision, feeling faint, drowsiness or confusion, bizarre behavior, unsteady walking, and coma. These are the side effects of Aspirin. Objective3000 (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(EC again; I love lively conversations.)@Anythingyouwant: one would expect the results of those studies to be reflected in the real world Yes, one would. In fact, one would think that such examples in the real world would be well known and easy to come up with. I'm not aware of any studies correlating that tendency with real-life incidents of serious crimes like first degree murder. Anyhow, it's much better known that alcohol can lead to aggression, and we know he was a heavy drinker, so that seems like a better villain to blame. But IMO (WP:OR again) he was way too much in control of himself at the time to have been drunk. I'm betting that the results of his autopsy will show no alcohol (or for that matter Valium) in his system. Have a nice lunch. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It was a nice lunch. The guy responsible for the University of Texas tower shooting had a malignant brain tumor, though no consensus emerged that that was a factor (I actually knew one of the psychiatrists who led that investigation). The coroner in Vegas surely has a difficult job piecing together the brain of the Vegas shooter after a bullet demolished it. The Vegas shooter was male, which I’m sure was a significant factor, though I would not favor legislation doing away with males. We have so many offsetting virtues! Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree, let's not outlaw men. They do have some redeeming qualities; besides they are kind of cute. Let's not outlaw Valium either. Or alcohol. Definitely not alcohol. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

On men and wine: “Men are like wine – some turn to vinegar, but the best improve with age.” ― Pope John XXIII. At least that's what I tell myself. O3000 (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

And as we all know: Wine improves with age. Age improves with wine. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I’d respond. But, I better wait for the effects on the Aspirin to wear off. Objective3000 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Xxx Konitaaa123 (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, thank you, whoever you are, and welcome to Wikipedia! --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting

Hi, MelanieN. You seem to forget to move Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting to Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting. Cheers!―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh, that's strange! The script indicated it was going to move it. Thanks for calling it to my attention. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the archives have become disconnected as well, e.g. Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting/Archive 1. Is there an easy way to rename them all? ValarianB (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Morty

Think I'll sit this one out. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you think it might be possible to just article ban morty from Oath Keepers. I think he was previously topic banned from American Politics. If you remember he had prepared an SPI about me, that he decided not to file. I actually stopped editing the article for a time to get away from it. I checked the talk page and left a comment for another editor that summarized some of the previous discussion (available in the archives) and Morty wrote I am confused by your wording. Are you saying you posted as the IP that signed as "0306" earlier? - this feels threatening because of past threats he has made (that he didn't follow through on once I stopped working on the article.) He also continues to make inappropriate comments that are unsourced and suggest an WP:ADVOCACY problem in this topic area like his most recent comment "Bylaws of the Oathkeepers"... yes yes and Pravda claimed it was real news. There's a reason that Wikipedia policy is so leery of first-party claims. Every white supremacist group claims they are "not racist", every tin pot fascist dictatorship calls itself a "people's republic", Skousen Cultists / Posse Comitatus white supremacist groups (many of which are also in the "Oath Keepers" group) claim they have the "real original constitution" when the Skousen edits are fraudulent... the list could go on for pages. Seraphim System (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC) 1, this [https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOath_Keepers&type=revision&diff=805156053&oldid=805154878 I consider an uncivil threat. 2, You wrote "I want to add" in direct response to my response to the "0306" IP address. So I asked for clarification. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC) All I saw on the page was a discussion between Doug Weller and an editor that I assumrd was new to the article. Your posts are still synth and still derailing the discussion and after so much time I don't see much imrpovement on this. I don't see how my comment in plain English can be construed as anything other then a reminder that sources on this topic have been previously posted to the t/p (which I researched w my database access that some editors may not have access to) - I'm also not sure how "I don't want to get involved again" can be even remotely construed as a threat. At best this is an ongoing competence issue, which has resulted in community bans in the past. But I have already seen that some admins have voiced suspicions that this behavior matches an account that is evading a previous ban. Seraphim System (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Misrepresentations and insinuations again, the incivil part is your accusations that you're going to hound me around trying to get an indef. Just leave me alone and knock the gaslighting off. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC) I think "I don't want to get involved again" can be construed as a threat in a situation where you're clearly getting involved - it's an underhanded way to imply that you DO plan on "getting involved" and given the context of the comment this "getting involved" can be reasonably understood by Morty as "follow me around" or "go around agitate for sanctions against me". Volunteer Marek  17:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledged

I read everything you said and I appreciate it. All of your points are valid. You're probably the best administrator I've ever seen on Wikipedia. You're extremely knowledgeable, make all editors feel welcome and appreciated, give others the benefit of the doubt whenever reasonable, and are very courteous to everyone even when you find the need to reprimand someone in your admin role. Thank you for getting your message across to me in such a non-hostile, professional manner. You should teach a course on deescalation. You are truly a great example to all other administrators. Thanks, again. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I was disappointed that you decided to stick with your usual practice of immediately deleting every comment someone makes on your talk page. But I will look forward to seeing productive input from you at the Shooting page and elsewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry about immediately deleting. Please don't be disappointed because it's nothing personal towards anyone. It's just that I'm the opposite of a hoarder. I'm more of a minimalist; I really have an aversion to any unnecessary clutter. It's a great stress reducer (not kidding, Google it). But just for you, I'll restore your message if you really want me to. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No need. It's your talk page, and if you weren't going to reply there and set up a normal conversational thread, there's no point. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User's disruption continues.[3][4][5] Classic aggressive ignorance of talk page policy and common practice, still inventing rules. Any sign that the gentle touch has had any positive effect? Not that I can see. Do you think any user talk warnings by other editors will help? I don't think so, because this editor won't listen to anybody but you. We should be ignored because we lack sufficient de-escalation skills, the merits of our arguments being irrelevant. Sigh. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh! I go away for a quick weekend trip and my talk page fills up. Sorry for the delay, everybody. Mandruss, I had already specifically told them that I was OK with leaving out the "badgering" comment. (That comment from me would have been visible on their talk page, if it wasn't for their peculiar habit of deleting everything from their talk page. I'd still like to see them stop that, and this is one of the arguments against it.) Moving the other editor's comment at Talk:Shooting was defensible; better than deleting it as some people would have done citing NOTFORUM. I checked their recent edits at other pages and I don't see a problem there. I'll keep an eye out to see they don't resume the badgering, that was definitely getting disruptive. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Templates

Hi,

I hope you or a talk page stalker knows the answer to this. I encountered a weird categorisation issue with a couple of templates ({{Dicdef}} and {{Copyvio links}}), that made my twinkleoptions.js (which doesn't actually use them, only mention them) appear in Category:Flagged dictionary definitions and Category:Articles containing links to copyright violations. I have edited those templates and the issue appears to have been fixed. However, I am not sure how to completely test the templates to make sure I haven't broken anything else (such as the nocat parameter). I tried using my sandbox, but the functionality I needed to test didn't work there for some reason. Is mainspace the only place where such tests are possible? I don't want to have to make test edits there and revert them. Or am I being a twonk and missing something obvious? Cheers. Adam9007 (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Adam9007: It depends on what you want to test. WP:TESTCASES has some information on sandboxes and test cases. I like Special:ExpandTemplates for testing categorization. The categorization parameters for {{ambox}} (|cat=, |all=) only apply to articles. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, JJMC89! Adam, I hope that answered your question because I wouldn't have a clue. --MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thanks. I didn't know about Special:ExpandTemplates. I didn't know what I was doing at first, but I think I've figured it out. The nocat parameters seem to be working as programmed. I did notice they're programmed a little differently though, and it would be nice to have some consistency. I also think that "yes" would be a plausible value for it in {{Copyvio links}}. Is there some "or" parameter for #ifeq, or do I have to use #switch? @MelanieN: yes, that answered my question, I think. Adam9007 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: You would have to use {{#switch}} or one of the {{yesno}} family of templates. I added {{yesno-no}} to that one. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hagiography alert

Hello MelanieN,

Please take a look at Robert Stewart (saxophonist) and its talk page, where the autobiographer demands that every bit of puffery be maintained forever. And he thinks that male editors are out to get him while female editors are probably much fairer. Are you willing to take a look? I will express my opinion tomorrow, if my house doesn't burn down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. As you can see, Mr. Stewart himself came here to ask for my help. (I do qualify as a female editor, and from his same home town, too!) I have replied to him below. I will continue to send good thoughts to you, and all my other Northern California friends; things seem to get scarier by the day. Keep us posted how you are doing. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your kind response in the section below.

The wildfire catastrophe has eased in the past two days, and fire never came closer than five miles from my house. The misery and destruction is mind-boggling though. My wife and I drove to a point yesterday where we could see half a dozen helicopters fighting the fires, returning repeatedly to a little reservoir to fill their giant buckets. It was an amazing spectacle. Thanks for asking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Very glad to hear that! I know you said earlier that refugees from the burn areas were coming to your city for shelter. I was alarmed to hear you hint just now it might not be far enough! And I'm sure the smoke is awful. My brother lives in Marin County and other relatives in San Francisco; sounds like the whole Bay Area is under siege from the smoke. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Don't know if you saw, Robert Stewart has just been indef blocked. My efforts may have been too little, too late, but I don't give up easily. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, please help me :-(

I'm extremely discouraged by the systemic bias & dismissiveness that I've encountered from all who've addressed me on my talk page. My comments & concerns are completely ignored. I have nowhere to turn, for all are in collision (evidence on my talk page) against me even after I complied with the demands of previous editors.

I've been trying for days now to reason with an editor. He's obsessed with removing my actual fact history as one of the premier saxophonist in Jazz. Two previous editors approved an article about me Robert Stewart (saxophonist) almost a year ago now. EddieHugh has come and attempted to delete most of my actual fact history with over 100 citations in the article as evidence. My talk page is filled with my attempts to reason with him and resolve without issue. But, I need the help of an authority as soon as possible. Please help me; please :-(

I sincerely thank you for your time. Professor Reason (talk) 13:26

Hello, Robert, and thanks for your note. (Hey, I'm from Oakland too! I see you went to Fremont. I went to Tech.) I will answer your question but you're not going to like the answer.

First and most important, you should not be editing this article at all. I'm sure other people have explained to you about conflict of interest and writing about yourself. The reason is that there is no way you can be neutral in writing about yourself, and neutrality is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia.

Second, your article is way too long and detailed. Even the lead sentence lists way too many descriptions of you; it should just list the main thing you are noted for, saxophonist. None of the other stuff is important in making you notable. Critical praise for your work should certainly be included, with direct quotes and citations, but a selection - not everything anybody ever said about you.

Third (after looking at the article's talk page), calm down. There is no conspiracy here, nobody is biased against you or your music, nobody is trying to put you down, nobody is singling you out. We are treating your article the same way we treat every other article. We don't usually have the article's subject come here and try to write the article to suit themselves, which might cause some people to be a little short with you; if they are, I apologize. But we are just insisting that you accept Wikipedia for what it is: an encyclopedia. People don't get to write their own encyclopedia articles. Other people write about them.

I appreciate your asking me for advice, and I certainly would have "helped you" if I could, but the bottom line is that you need to back off. Let people who understand Wikipedia edit your article. It will be a much better article that way.

Now with that said, congratulations on your distinguished career (playing with Wynton Marsalis must have been a thrill). It's nice to see a local person make good. But you should not be editing the article at all, and you certainly should not be cramming every possible bit of data into the article and arguing with experienced Wikipedians about what belongs there. Wikipedia has rules about who can have an article here, and you do qualify to have an article, thanks to mainstream news coverage like this. But we also have rules about what kind of material can be included in the article. Those rules will need to be interpreted by people who understand how Wikipedia works. Sorry I couldn't help in the way you wanted me to, but maybe this will help you to understand where everybody is coming from. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Beautiful explanations for this editor, Melanie, congrats on your diplomatic skills! @Professor Reason: we do love jazz around here, nothing personal. Keep the spirit! — JFG ^talk 16:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi, I agreed with your initiative in: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Rachel_Maddow#Scandals Could you comment on this? https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Rachel_Maddow#Scandals_2 Small thing perhaps, but I think it is the same thing. Anton AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, and for calling my attention to this. I have commented at the talk page, and restored what used to be the consensus version in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45