User talk:MelanieN/Archive 80

Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/6

I was going back through the tutorial again to refresh my memory. I got to that page and clicked the "test what you've learned in a sandbox" button to continue with the lesson and got a message that says:

"The page title you have tried to create has been protected from creation. The reason given is: Repeatedly recreated. You may also wish to check the deletion log. If you feel this page should be created, please...first ask the protecting administrator to review proposed new content for the page, being sure to have adequate independent, reliable sources to meet any notability requirements as set forth in the general notability guideline or other appropriate specific guideline."

It really doesn't make sense as part of the tutorial so maybe it's broken. Anyway I clicked the "protecting administrator" link and it took me here so I thought you might either be able to explain whether its a bug of some kind that your trying to fix, or I'm doing something wrong, or at least point me in the right direction if someone linked your username by accident instead of the correct one, thanks. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't recall protecting anything in that area, but I might have forgotten. Can you provide me with a link to the page you clicked - either the one saying "protected", or the previous one with the "test what you've learned" button - so maybe I can figure out why that happened? Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here you go, Draft:Sample page/52419243, accessed by clicking "test what you've learned in a sandbox" on Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/6. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. When I go to the tutorial and click on “Test what you’ve learned” it takes me to “Creating User:MelanieN/Sample page”, in other words offering me a custom page that I can use as my test page. I then tried it using my alternate account and again it suggested a custom page under that account’s name. But when you clicked on it, you got taken to “Creating Draft:Sample page/52419243”? I logged out and tried it, and I got directed to the same page as you did. Apparently this is what happens with unregistered or unlogged-in users.

So yes, that page was deleted three times in January and February this year, and I then protected it per a request at RFPP. (I see that the previous deletion rationales were per G2, “Test page”. That puzzles me, because surely the goal of “test what you’ve learned” is to give the person a test page.) It appears that any unregistered user gets directed to that page, which then gets deleted as a test page. I think I’ll ask about this at the Help:Introduction to editing area. There ought to be some way for unregistered users to get a test page! -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool thanks. It seems really weird that a page with such a random number was chosen, maybe it was a misclick or someone made a mistake? Anyway there's also more links for all of the other tutorials see Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/5, Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/4, Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/4, Help:Introduction_to_editing_with_VisualEditor/6, Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/6, Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor/6, Help:Introduction to tables with VisualEditor/5, Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/6, Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style/6. All of which have you create pages with equally random numbers. I can go ahead and make them if that will help to see if the numbers are the same for everyone. The other weird thing is that none of them have instructions on how to delete when you are done. I finally learned from the AFC help desk that your supposed to place {{db-g7}} on the page, which is really unintuitive, I mean it worked, see Draft:Referencing sandbox/22014662 and its easy once you know what to do, but good luck figuring that out without asking. So I think the pages you create for testing should explain how to delete once your done. Or perhaps there's a simpler way I'm missing? Anyway glad your looking in to this. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the good research! I hope you don't mind, I copied most of what you said over to my comment at Help talk:Introduction. For that matter you are welcome to join in that discussion. (At least I hope it becomes a discussion - that is not a very active board.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I would if I'm not busy later, but that page is locked so I can't edit it and the edit request button doesn't work like it normally does but instead redirects you to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_edits_to_a_protected_page without the normal idiot proof preload. I guess I could hit the button on a page where it works normally and then copy-paste the code to that page and tweak till it works, but honestly the entire edit request system is pretty clunky so I'll probably only do that if anyone has a question for me and I'm actually around, since I have to go out for a while in another half-hour or so. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice that the talk page is semiprotected. Well, I already pasted there the bulk of what you said here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile I unsalted the page with an explanation, so at least we have accomplished that much. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You accomplished a bit more than that actually. It looks like they restructured to direct everyone to Wikipedia:Sandbox instead if I'm reading the conversation right. Following the breadcrumbs linked from that conversation leads to Help_talk:Introduction_to_Wikipedia#Random_subpages_for_IPs_aren't_random. From which I gather, and I am no web expert so take this for what its worth, that the numbers do change it's just only when the server cache is cleared which seems to happen every few days. For example at one point the page was Draft:Sample page/86125252, and it looks like in that case the number lasted 6 days, but again I am not knowledgeable enough to know whether or not the length of time between server cache clearings is typical. As a side note before I disappear for a while, and this may be just me, but usually editing pages with "Wikipedia" in front of them makes me a bit more nervous because they seem somehow official like the help desk, so I would've preferred Draft:Sandbox since that feels more like a, for lack of a better phrase, drafting area, where mistakes are not a big deal, but again maybe I'm just weird. Anyway thanks for all your help sometimes this place can be very confusing. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks & follow up

Hi MelanieN,

Just a quick note of thanks again for your input yesterday, not only with the issue at Jamie Raskin, but with your comments at the ANI re: wally. You were exceedingly fair and level headed in both places. If I recall, many years ago I said you were "Solomonic!" :) Nice to see that hasn't changed. Having said that, I also took your zen approach and stepped back for a day. I even went back to the ANI to review it, and everyone's responses. I think my final comments there were also fair and reasonable. If you haven't had a chance to review them, I'd appreciate your input. It will certainly help to resolve things moving forward.

But also, the whole issue of the wrong section heading still persists. I'd just like to point out that your suggestion of "Early life and education"... The next paragraph should be titled "Early career" is one that I immediately agreed with. The only other "non-wally" input was from Patrick, who said that while he was used to "Early life," he had no strong opinion and ""Early life and career" or similar is also fine."

So doesn't that represent consensus? Because wally's consensus-of-one edit still prevails? Don't know if you have kids, but it kind of reminds me of when the parents let the stubborn kid have his way, against their better judgment, just to keep the peace. But we can't/don't operate like that here. So my preference would be for you to implement the consensus, since you proposed it. If you're comfortable with that. But if you'd prefer, I will. As always, I'll respect your judgment. Please just let me know. And again, as always, many thanks! Cheers! X4n6 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it consensus yet. I'd like to hear from a few more people. Now that we three have stopped shouting at each other, some other people might be willing to chime in. One other thing: the section "Early life", which also contained one sentence about his early career, was the previous content. Someone recently added more about his early career, which to me justifies a separate section, but in this kind of situation it needs consensus to overturn the previous content. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought our 3 votes were sufficient for consensus. I've seen folks insist 2 was consensus when I accidently backed into someone's fiefdom. So what number were you thinking? Also, I could just RfC the thing too, right? By the way, I did the most recent rewrite on both paragraphs. They were kind of a hot mess. Wally added Raskin's teaching; and someone else just recently added Plaskett being his student. All good, but it needs to be contextualized, so it doesn't read as though in 25 years, she was his only notable student. Just a bit of recentism there. But anyway, how's this: if I substantially add to that section, especially since there is so much more available now, can we move on from a heading that refers to a professor's 25 year career as his early life? Goodness, in all my time on this project, I just don't recall any instance where a heading this innocuous also became this sacrosanct. That just seems so counterintuitive to the project to me. X4n6 (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What three? I see Wally and Patrick in favor of a single section, and you and me in favor of two sections. I do think if you are able to expand the early career material into several paragraphs - not with padding, but with actual information - that would greatly strengthen the case for a separate section. As well as being a valuable improvement to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Patrick said: "Early life and career" or similar is also fine." Isn't that also what we we're saying? But I'll put expansion on my "to do" list. There's so much more available. Not just to "fix" the heading either. But his decades as a law professor have garnered lots of interest recently and deserve their own section. So of course, they'll be a valuable improvement. I'll give you a heads' up when they're up. X4n6 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Earlier he said "I agree Wallyfromdilbert has it right...and there's no need for further subsectioning". -- MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

True. But as you said, that was earlier. It was actually the day before. His view changed the next day in his last response. Looks like he was persuaded by the subsequent arguments. X4n6 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, we need to wait for a clearer consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. As I mentioned, I'll let you know when I've updated the page and get your input then. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "The Final Countdown (song)"

Could you please lock the article before another user undos the removal of the mention of the Blender list? --2601:199:4181:E00:38BE:60A5:11AE:9B76 (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for 2 weeks. There is a discussion at the talk page about whether to include this material. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Re:ECP

Regarding your decline the disruption is continuing. It includes blatant misrepresentation of source, use of Twitter for source and so on. Why there should be no ECP for this controversial article? Wareon (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And this account with just 11 edits is now edit warring to restore his WP:OR. I don't think it will benefit the page to keep editing enabled for non-ECP users. Wareon (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Although that one user was blocked, there appear to be sockpuppets coming out of the woodwork. I have changed the semi-protection to extended confirmed, which lasts until December. You might consider filing an SPI or contacting the administrator who blocked the one user, but that's whack-a-mole; the article does need ECP as you recognized. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocking editing because designated terrorist group is called "Revolutionary group"?

BOOM, pkk is terrorist by EU: https://archive.vn/20120722224908/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:028:0057:01:EN:HTML BOOM, by your own government: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/

pkk is as "revolutionary" as isis. and "reverters" of the edits are kurdish living in europe. 88.230.174.129 (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on Bernie Sanders

Please invoking indefinite pending-changes protection and temporary semi-protection on Bernie Sanders article as vandals persistently add wrong and unsourced content about him after ECP expires. This article has been requested by Tartan357 in RFPP. 180.243.208.77 (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think indefinite semi-protection, which was in place until it was replaced by temporary ECP during the 2020 primaries, would be more appropriate given the high level of disruption. As you've mentioned, I've already made a request at RFPP. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The page has now been indefinitely semi-protected. Requests are handled pretty expediently at RFPP, so you don't need to reach out to individual admins once a request has been made. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

A sock?

Hi Melanie. Who would have thought that this subject would come up again? Favonian (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, point is now moot. Favonian (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, it must have been, what, a whole week? :-( Last month’s promoter of this theme was sock-blocked. [1] This is undoubtedly the same person, but of course they wouldn’t say so at SPI because it’s an IP. I was just pondering who to alert about this (I can’t do range blocks), but GS was on it. That gives us a week’s reprieve at least. Thanks for the alert. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Small favor

Hi Melanie, I mistakenly included a link to Antigonish instead of Antigonish (poem) in the tag for my edit in the relative clause article (i.e. "20:54, 25 February 2021‎ Kent Dominic talk contribs‎ 84,611 bytes −6‎ Undid revision 1008908055 by Wiki4950 (talk) To repeat: Gender neutrality has no bearing on this example, as a quotation from "Antigonish," by Hughes Mearns.") Can you change that tag from Antigonish to Antigonish (poem)? Sorry for the inconvenience, but thanks for the help. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Kent, and thanks for the note. I see you are talking about a link in an edit summary. I am not able to change edit summaries. What you can do is post a "null edit" (making some inconsequential editing change to the article, such as adding a space) and use the edit summary to say something like "Null edit to correct previous edit summary; the reference was to Antigonish (poem), not Antigonish". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping you had a magic wand. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

They haven't added that one to the admin toolbox. Sorry. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)