Contents
- 1 For your perusal.....
- 2 Required Notification
- 3 Notice
- 4 Recent RfCs on US city names
- 5 You've got mail!
- 6 Beverly Hills
- 7 Re: Talk:San Diego Union-Tribune
- 8 Laurens
- 9 Eyal Yanilov
- 10 Who was that masked IP editor?
- 11 Marcus Simaika
- 12 Marcus Simaika
- 13 Thanks for correcting vandalism reversion
- 14 Notability of academics, revisited
- 15 Improper revert
- 16 Zika virus protection
- 17 Person
- 18 Thank you
- 19 DYK for Sandy Cornish
- 20 Reaction to a page protection
- 21 Edit warring Chinese IP is back.
- 22 Drmargi is causing edit war
- 23 Reply
- 24 Another DYK?
- 25 Thank you
- 26 2014 Isla Vista killings
- 27 Removal of Twice protection
- 28 DYK for Staten Island boat graveyard
- 29 jid ali
- 30 deletion of a contestation of speedy deletion
- 31 Bow Group page - protection
- 32 WP:Articles for deletion/AWK Solutions
- 33 Thanks
- 34 Invitation
- 35 Deletion of Destiny Wrestling Organization
- 36 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cordelia_Mendoza_(second_nomination)
- 37 Protection for all
- 38 Speedy tags
- 39 Barnstar
- 40 FYI
- 41 So hey
- 42 Allahdad Bohyo
- 43 PVJ
- 44 GAB's talk page
- 45 Deletion review for Austin Wade Petersen
- 46 AfD
- 47 April Fools
- 48 WP:NCOLLATH
- 49 Passive Frame Theory Deletion Notice
- 50 Easter126
- 51 Korea
For your perusal.....
You made the news. Just a passing mention mind, no indepth coverage yet. ;) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and again here (at the bottom). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Required Notification
This is to notify you that I have opened a complaint about your behavior in the Victoria Pynchon matter here:
Pernoctus (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia editor paid to protect the page "John Ducas". Thank you. Jackmcbarn ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk([[ 23:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Recent RfCs on US city names
April 2012: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/June#WP:USPLACE was not officially made into an RfC or officially closed.
September-October 2012: On another page, Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archives/2012#Requested move was closed as "No move".
An extensive November 2012 discussion involving 55 people was closed as "maintain status quo (option B)". Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names.
A discussion in January 2013 later was never officially made into an RfC or officially closed; discussion died out with 18 editors opposed to a change and 12 in favor. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/February#Request for comment .
Discussion started in June 2013: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/June#Naming convention; speedy-closed per WP:SNOW.
December 2013-February 2014: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington? . Closed as "no consensus to change existing practice (that is, USPLACE)."
- January-February 2014: Associated proposal for a moratorium on USPLACE discussions. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February#Moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions. Closed as "There is a one year moratorium on changing the policy at WP:USPLACE unless someone can offer a reason that has not been discussed previously."
You've got mail!
Message added 11:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Tito Dutta (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Beverly Hills
Happy New Year. Too bad you're on vacation. You're missing out on Talk:Beverly Hills, California#Requested move 4 January 2016. I know you've been a supporter of WP:USPLACE. Just wanted to let you know. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Re: Talk:San Diego Union-Tribune
Message added 03:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Laurens
Hi, Melanie! Just curious - what caught your eye about the Laurens article? As I mentioned on the talk page, I was going to call for semi-protect, so glad you did it, I'm just curious how you came across it. —Luis (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- User:Slightsmile requested semi-protection at the requests for page protection noticeboard. It was clear the page was under serious attack. I was going to cite it for BLP violations, but then I realized he is not a "living person". Still, his memory deserves better than what was happening there. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Eyal Yanilov
Hi Melanie. I see you deleted the article about Eyal Yanilov as being non-notable. With just one quick Google search I found coverage of him in Haaretz, a leading newspaper in Israel, which states as follows: "The main goal is to extricate oneself as fast as possible," Eyal Yanilov, head instructor of the International School of Krav Maga, explains. Yanilov was one of Lichtenfeld's top students and wrote a book with him called "Krav Maga: How to Protect Yourself Against Armed Assault" whose foreword was written by the former president of Israel, Shimon Peres. It has been translated into six languages. [2]. That sounds notable enough to me. If you restore the article, I will work on it and improve the sourcing.Geewhiz (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, Geewhiz. The complaint at AfD was that there were only primary sources. The mention in Haaretz is a non-primary source, so that overcomes that objection - although I'm sure you realize that being quoted somewhere is not enough by itself to establish notability. Try to find sourced information ABOUT him, including sourcing for his biographical details, and third-party evidence about the importance of his book. I will userfy the article to you; see what you can do with it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done The article is at User:Gilabrand/Eyal Yanilov. When you think you have it ready, let me know. If I think it is sufficiently improved from the original version, I will put a note on the talk page saying so; otherwise it would probably be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4 as soon as you move it into article space. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Melanie. I have revised the article and added several references. But for some strange reason, these changes do not show up in the final saved copy. Whole sentences have disappeared, too. Is there some technical issue here?Geewhiz (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think I fixed it. There was a "/" missing from the end ("/ref") of a reference citation. Funny how these little things can mess things up! BTW the article would be much better if you used a standard format for references. See WP:Referencing for beginners.
- More importantly, the article is still short of independent reliable sources. You found significant coverage in Black Belt magazine, that's good. And there is that one mention in Haaretz. You cite his diplomas to a book, but we can't see the actual fact in the book; it isn't required that a reference be available online, but we need SOME way to locate the cited fact, maybe a page number? Keep looking for references, preferably from completely independent sources (not seminars he gives or stuff he himself says or writes). --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think the article is in better shape now, certainly better than a large proportion of what currently passes for encyclopedic content on this site...Based on my current research of this topic it seems pretty clear that a lot of the drama stems from business rivalry.Geewhiz (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Geewhiz, I agree that the article is ready to be moved to mainspace. Good work! I expanded the reference citations a little. I will move it to mainspace, and I will add a note on the talk page saying that it is significantly different from the original. That means it is not eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G4. If people feel he still does not meet WP:GNG, it could be nominated for deletion again - but only via a new AfD discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Who was that masked IP editor?
Hello Melanie! This is a message I should have written months ago, but it's been a long time since I brought a computer with me to a public IP address. I finally decided it was just too impolite to wait any longer, so I put on my ten-gallon hat and my masked IP address, and rode into town to say thank you for the truly heroic work you did on the case of FormerUser:MusicAngels.
Thanks to you, my little corner of Wikipedia is a safe and peaceful place again. Folks are sitting on their porches, waving at each other just the way they used to. We don't worry ourselves about whether we locked the windows or remembered to take the keys out of the car. We've learned to stop looking over our shoulder as we walk down to the fishing pond. I was editing the other day with a smile on my face, just the way I did back in the days when the first snow fell in November. This is all thanks to you, though I know you had help from other good-hearted admins.
So now it's time for me to retire my anonymous IP mask, but only after I wave my thanks while riding off into the sunset on my swift and trusty browser, shouting, "Hi yo, Chrome, away!" --- Posted from the anonymous IP address: 50.74.98.197 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, mysterious masked man, and for the kind words. I'm glad to know they didn't come back as a sock. And I love your description of the editing climate now that they are gone. Wikipedia can be a great place to volunteer, can't it? --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Marcus Simaika
Hi MelanieN. Thank you for telling me how to reference my text. I have now referenced Marcus Simaika's page as suggested by yourself and by Peridon. I hope that this is to your satisfaction. Thank you for all your kind help.
Youssef — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youssef simaika (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Marcus Simaika
Thank you very much. I am very grateful for all the kind help that you gave me. Youssef simaika (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting vandalism reversion
Hi, thanks for correcting the vandalism reversion against me on the Charles Manson page. Its good to see that some people still apply common sense on Wikipedia.110.175.158.17 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Notability of academics, revisited
Hi, Melanie. I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mircea Itul as "delete" and one argument from you I use in the close was "Having an academic position at a university is not enough (except for certain highly notable or distinguished titles)." Elsewhere, however, I have generally accepted that a respectable university's website listing a professor as a named post is sufficient to stop deletion, for example Kerrie Mengersen (verifiable as being the Professor of Statistics in the Science and Engineering Faculty at Queensland University of Technology). Does my view contradict yours in the AfD above, or am I getting the wrong end of the stick? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Ritchie! Thanks for the note, and thanks for closing that incredibly long AfD. (I hope you didn't read all the walls of text.) My understanding of WP:PROF is based on this: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." IMO that grants automatic notability only to someone with a named chair or the title "Distinguished Professor of...". It does not grant automatic notability to anyone with the title "professsor", even at a major university. To me, someone who is a professor - even a full, tenured professor - must meet other criteria, such as being highly cited for their work. That's based on the American university system; maybe "professor" in the UK is a rarer or higher or more distinguished title? WP:PROF is a tough criterion to meet (often contrasted with sports where everyone who has ever played in a fully professional league gets an article), but WP:PROF appears to be the consensus rule here so that's the understanding I apply. IMO Mengersen doesn't qualify due to her position as a professor, but she may well meet the criteria due to her leadership in societies. (BTW I removed some puffery from that article and fixed the punctuation.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I skimmed through the hatted sections as best I could. I don't close AfDs often and in this case I put my own feelings to one side and just reported what everyone felt, which seemed to be a lot of trivial mentions that didn't add add up. I did notice that he seems to have travelled through quite a number of academic places, and that in itself is a red flag; most genuinely notable academics tend to stay in one place and stay there forever and ever.
- I believe in the UK and Europe, it takes more work to achieve a title of "Professor" (and this seems to be confirmed by our article on Professor, though it could do with more sources), it's the highest level of achievement you can get in a university, you must have at least a PhD, be a recognised expert in your field and only comes after a lot of hard work, possibly decades' worth. As I understand it, having achieved the tenure, you are then frequently called to be a spokesperson on a topic, which is why we consider them notable. In the case of Mengersen, I saw obvious evidence of being a world expert on statistics, and the Google Scholar link and felt that was good enough for somebody to write an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I had a feeing that "Professor" might mean more in the UK (and Commonwealth) than it does here. I put my own feelings to one side and just reported what everyone felt. That's what I do too. Most of the time, if I am closing an AfD I don't even look at the article. In my mind I am wearing one of two hats: either admin or editor. If I am wearing my admin hat, my job is to evaluate the consensus of the discussion, not to evaluate the article as such. If I go off and evaluate the article for myself, I figure that makes me an editor rather than an admin, and I !vote rather than closing. That's what I did in this case. (Sometimes I add a !vote just to make it easier for the next guy to close. That's also what I did in this case.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
-
Improper revert
Your recent revert at Hillary Clinton was very ill-advised. Please see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". The language you reverted had not been previously removed from the BLP, and it was sincerely written to overcome the stated objections. You gave no substantive reason for opposing it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Discuss at the talk page, please. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm done there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Zika virus protection
Where is the persistent high level of vandalism on the Zika virus page that has not been summarily and instantaneously reverted by automated means? You have prevented valuable edits by IP editors for no good reason. 108.243.8.251 (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I realize that semi-protection doesn't just block vandalism; it also blocks constructive edits from responsible anonymous users. That's unfortunate, and it's why we are conservative in applying protection. But in this case, just in the four hours before I protected, there had been four vandalism or inappropriate edits by IP editors, including two blanking the page. Bots caught only two of them. With such a heavily edited article, it's almost impossible for page watchers to keep up with that level of vandalism. Some vandalism had been going on for at least the past week, that's why I protected it for a week. I'm sure you've heard this before, and you don't have to do it, but you could avoid this kind of "getting punished for what the bad apples do" by registering an account. Your alternative, if you want to make an edit during protection, is to post a {{request edit}} suggestion on the talk page and hope someone else will make the edit for you. See Template:Request edit. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your semiprotection is unwise and heavy handed. Many of us have had no problem keeping up with the edits on this article. Now, you have biased the edits in favor of registered users, who are almost as likely to be vandals as the IPs. I suspect you did very little in examining the history of this article before quickly and hastily responding to the semiprotection request from someone who has made almost no edits to it. Of course it is easier for you to reflexively semiprotect than taking the time to determine whether there has been heavy vandalizing. Very disappointing action on your part. 208.54.4.228 (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Person
Although editing is very slow, almost none of pending changes edits were good. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- You are right that there isn't much editing of any kind at this article. But in the 6 months since I protected it, there have been about 20 edits by IPs and non-auto-confirmed users. All but one were vandalism or otherwise unproductive; only one was accepted. That suggests that the PC protection is needed and should be extended. I will extend it for another 6 months. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for protecting Amrita Sher-Gil. It with getting very difficult to keep up with the various attacks, even though several of us were reverting. LynwoodF (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- @LynwoodF: You're welcome. I wonder why that article suddenly became such a target? It had been fairly quiet for years. Has she been in the news or something, to attract such a lot of attention all of a sudden? --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I really don't know why, but at first I was not surprised. Then I realized that it was not Frida Kahlo, whose article attracts a lot of vandalism, but not as intense as this was. I did wonder whether it had anything to do with Amrita's nickname, "India's Frida Kahlo". There seems to be an unpleasant contempt for Frida in certain quarters, and also for another painter, Paul Nash, who is close to my heart, as my parents are buried a few yards from his grave. LynwoodF (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Sandy Cornish
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Reaction to a page protection
Thanks for keeping out Wolfgang Beltracchi from the Art Forgery Page
Great Job !!
and with the new . (Protected "Art forgery": link, o my goodness, this is soooo good to keep out
Wolfgang Beltracchi
and any possible link to
Art Forgery
and i cant forget
John Myatt, (born 1945), is a British artist and was convicted of Art forgery who, with John Drewe, perpetrated what has been described as "the biggest art fraud of the 20th century".[1]
Early life
The son of a farmer, Myatt attended art school and discovered a talent for mimicking other artists' styles but at first only painted for amusement and for friends. He worked as a songwriter for a time and claims authorship of the song "Silly Games", a UK no. 2 hit for Janet Kay in 1979, although this is attributed by Kay to producer Dennis Bovell and credited to Diana Bovell. He later worked as a teacher in Staffordshire.[2][3]
- ^ Honigsbaum, Mark (2005-12-05). "The master forger". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
- ^ Ferguson, Euan (2006-07-16). "Making Monet". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
- ^ "Janet Kay - Silly Games". Retrieved 2015-01-04.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.107.54.153 (talk • contribs)
Reply
Thanks for your note, which I have formatted for clarity. I assume your point here is to express frustration about the semi-protection of Art forgery, which prevents you from adding the above information. I would just note that 1) the above material was previously added to the article multiple times by various sockpuppets of User:David Adam Kess, and was immediately deleted, and 2) this kind of extended information does not seem to fit within the format of that article. There is a list of known art forgers (including Myatt) at the bottom of the page, but no detail is given about them at the Art forgery page; detail is at the Wikipedia page John Myatt. Addition and re-addition of this inappropriate material was the major reason for protecting the article, so you can blame yourself (assuming you are another sockpuppet) for the protection. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring Chinese IP is back.
The short page protects didn't have much effect, and he's aggressively edit warring at And Then There Were None (TV series). Would you at least page protect it, and preferably levy a block for 3RR? DrmargiDrmargi (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I did nothing but trying to improve the article, and it's you who's been aggressively causing edit war due to a grudge caused by opinion difference at every article i'm trying to improve. I suggest you to stop your irrational behaviour and try to be reasonable as hard as it might be for you. ---114.64.251.196 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, if your grudge against people who hold a view that is different to yours is that strong, then you should just find some other ways to quench your rage instead of following and edit warring at almost every article like a sniffing dog, Lord pardon my speech.---114.64.251.196 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up: he's back again, now on .194, and has gone right back to some of the same articles and begun reverting. Mostly minor stuff so far. --Drmargi (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Drmargi is causing edit war
The wiki account Drmargi has been aggressively causing edit war due to a grudge caused by opinion difference at almost every article i'm trying to improve. Would you please find some way to deal with him such as blocking him? Thanks. --114.64.251.196 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Reply
I am traveling and don't have access to my admin tools. So I can't do any page protection right now. If you feel that escalation to blocks is warranted I suggest you take it to one of the WP notice boards. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- No sweat. He hit 10RR, and after a quick trip to AN3, another admin levied a week's vacation. You enjoys your travels!! --Drmargi (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just a quick weekend trip, back already. TEN reverts? Amazing. I tried an educational approach: brief protection, counseling, gentle warnings. Sometimes that's effective. Not this time, evidently. :/ --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sadly, he's guided by too much anger, and too great a need to not only be right, but to win. It seems to be an epidemic these days. Go take a look at the treasure on my talk page, from another editor. --Drmargi (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- My sympathies. It's amazing how vitriolic people can get over a simple disagreement. As a Wikifriend of mine likes to say to such people: take a look at the news, or go visit a homeless shelter or a cancer clinic - then maybe you'll be able to put this kind of thing in perspective. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- The frustrating part is that it has to stay put until Twitter acts on my complaint, then I'll request it be rev del'd. But I can see how some editors want to threaten legal action. It's a legal grey area. Sigh... --Drmargi (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- It could be deleted now, and revdel'd later. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're right of course, but I hate to move it now I've filed a complaint with Twitter. Let's see what they do on Monday, then I'll check in with you. Thanks for the support. I'm so weary of people assuming I'm a man. --Drmargi (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I hear you. What kind of name do they think "Margi" is? Maybe they only see the "Dr" part - there is unfortunately a sizable percentage of the country that still assumes all doctors are men (last time I looked it was about one-third women). Then of course there is the general assumption at Wikipedia that all editors are male, so that they don't even look at our name, much less our user page. Not much we can do about this, except shake our heads. "We've come a long way, baby" - but we still have a long way to go. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- (stalker) Don't forget that while the original Amalthea was either a nymph or a (nanny) goat belonging to a nymph, the Wikipedian admin Amalthea is male... Anyway, if something is deleted, it doesn't need revdel. It might need re-creation and oversight if anything should be really buried, as admins can see revdelled and deleted things, but not oversighted things. I've not come across a case where I've requested re-creation for oversight (in fact, I've only just thought of it...), but if there is any possibility that another admin might restore a deleted article that contains something really bad, it might be an idea. Peridon (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I hear you. What kind of name do they think "Margi" is? Maybe they only see the "Dr" part - there is unfortunately a sizable percentage of the country that still assumes all doctors are men (last time I looked it was about one-third women). Then of course there is the general assumption at Wikipedia that all editors are male, so that they don't even look at our name, much less our user page. Not much we can do about this, except shake our heads. "We've come a long way, baby" - but we still have a long way to go. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're right of course, but I hate to move it now I've filed a complaint with Twitter. Let's see what they do on Monday, then I'll check in with you. Thanks for the support. I'm so weary of people assuming I'm a man. --Drmargi (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- It could be deleted now, and revdel'd later. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- The frustrating part is that it has to stay put until Twitter acts on my complaint, then I'll request it be rev del'd. But I can see how some editors want to threaten legal action. It's a legal grey area. Sigh... --Drmargi (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- My sympathies. It's amazing how vitriolic people can get over a simple disagreement. As a Wikifriend of mine likes to say to such people: take a look at the news, or go visit a homeless shelter or a cancer clinic - then maybe you'll be able to put this kind of thing in perspective. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sadly, he's guided by too much anger, and too great a need to not only be right, but to win. It seems to be an epidemic these days. Go take a look at the treasure on my talk page, from another editor. --Drmargi (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just a quick weekend trip, back already. TEN reverts? Amazing. I tried an educational approach: brief protection, counseling, gentle warnings. Sometimes that's effective. Not this time, evidently. :/ --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Another DYK?
What do you make of this? Could you do a bit of copyediting? We can make this a DYK, you see that the subject is interesting. :p Jim Carter 12:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion but I think I'll pass on this one; I have several other projects I'm working on. At first I wondered if this subject even had enough coverage for an article - after all it is brand new, patents not yet issued, not yet on the market except in a couple of test locations. But I did find additional coverage: [4] [5] [6] One suggestion: the article shouldn't be called Archelis; that's just one of several such products on the market. The Japanese company Nitto (which does not have a Wikipedia article) makes Archelis; the Swiss company Noonee (also no article) makes the Chairless Chair. It looks as of the generic name per sources is "wearable chair" so maybe that should be the article name. Sorry I can't help more. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
I wanted to reach out and let you know that your willingness to explain the Wikipedia policies related to the issues of the Hammerschlagen article did not go unnoticed. Your providing examples, using different language than what is used in the policies, and stating what verbiage I was using that causes angst in others were communications that others did not provided to me: your words were the difference between being left behind in the dark and understanding what constitutes acceptability. Though the circumstances under which we met were a little awkward, I do greatly appreciate having met you. Thank you. Jim at WRB (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- What a nice note! You're welcome, User:Jim at WRB. I know your Wikipedia experiences were frustrating and I'm glad you have no hard feelings. Since you felt that the article here was causing problems for your company, I suspect you'll find you are better off without it. I hope your company thrives! --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again, this time for explaining how to get a hold of a specific user on Wikipedia. As you may know, I'm not really all that good with using Wikipedia but am trying to learn. It's kind of fun wandering around this big web-collaboration. I also have a couple of questions on a draft of mine (if you're up for answering those and helping me better understand the verifiability and notability wiki-policies). Jim at WRB (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
2014 Isla Vista killings
I believe you protecting the article was groundless, since there was no vandalism going on in the article recently. This is not vandalism: [7][8]. --87.110.93.102 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, and thanks for your note. I agree, those are good-faith edits, not vandalism. Since they have been disputed, they should be discussed at the talk page (not re-added via an edit war), and I see that the IP account involved has already initiated a discussion there. That's good. If consensus is reached to add that information, any auto-confirmed user can do so.
The reason I semi-protected the article - and for 3 months - is that I looked at the longer-term recent history of the article. It has been repeatedly subjected to vandalism like this[9] and this[10] and particularly this[11][12]. Also because the article had needed semi-protection six times previously.
I realize that semi-protection places a burden on responsible unregistered users. That's unfortunate, and that's why we are normally very conservative in using it. While it is in place, unregistered users have the option of using the {{edit semi-protected}} template on the talk page, or of registering and auto-confirming an account. Or, of course, they can request a different administrator to shorten or lift the protection. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Removal of Twice protection
Thank you for protecting the Twice (band) page. However, someone just removed the protecting, saying that the page is not protected. Am I allowed to add it back? The page really needs the protection... Katzenlibrary (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note, Katzenlibrary. I only protected the article for three days, because the vandalism was very recent and short-term. The protection has now expired. Let's wait and see if it is needed again. I see a couple of IP edits since the protection expired, but they appear to be constructive. And that's one reason Wikipedia is very conservative about protection - so as not to block editing from responsible IPs. Let me know if the vandalism resumes. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Looking back I think I thought the tag said it was in place until February of next year, so that's on me! If the vandalism resumes, I will let you know. It's been a pretty consistent problem, but hopefully it will subside. Thanks! Katzenlibrary (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Staten Island boat graveyard
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
jid ali
The page was reverted inappropriately and I was given warning by correcting certain details that connote to the market area being a high class costal area while it is far from the sea and made of shanty homes. Bh.alnasser (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Bh.alnasser: You have been edit warring and repeatedly inserting your own opinion, which is not supported by the map in the article or by sources like this one. You need to either stop this, or come up with some sources that support your opinion. (Might there be more than one village or neighborhood with this name, and that is why your description is so different from the description in the article?) --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
deletion of a contestation of speedy deletion
You deleted the talk page of the speedy deleted "lambda the ultimate" article. Did you see I put a message contesting the speedy deletion ? Should this be discussed before the re-deletion ? TomT0m (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I did see that, TomT0m, but that is the wrong place for a protest once the article has already been deleted. Here's what you need to do: First, be sure that you are familiar with the criteria for having an article here; the general rule is at WP:GNG and the rule specifically for web content is at Wikipedia:Notability (web). Compare those requirements with the Lambda the Ultimate article, which had no independent sourcing at all. If after reading this material you still feel the article should be restored, or if you think you can improve it to meet the criteria, you should take your request/explanation to the talk page of the administrator who deleted the article; that would be User talk:Ritchie333. He can restore the article, or WP:Userfy it to you as a draft for you to make improvements, or he can counsel you about why the subject is not likely to qualify for an article. If he chooses not to restore or userfy the article, or if he doesn't respond (but give him some time, we are not all in the same time zone), then you can take your request to Wikipedia:Deletion review. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I clicked on the link that is proposed in the message announcing the deletion. Reading just a few links about what was required for a contestation it was already too late. Said differently, in a so short notice that message is useless or the procedure is totally dysfunctional, only a really hard core wikipedian can answer in less than 10 minutes. This is kind of weird because the contestation of a speedy deletion is far more easy than to ask for a page restauration. Plus I find totally rude to have a message deleted without a single explanation. Not that I so much care about the article, although I feel that there is room for it in here, but I feel a little bit like in Brazil in here ;) TomT0m (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, you're right - four minutes between the tag and the deletion is pretty tight and may set some kind of record! I'm sorry the procedure worked so poorly for you. Please don't take it personally. Now that we are where we are, is there something you would like me to do? I can copy your contestation over to Ritchie's page, if you would like (so that you don't have to reconstruct it). --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi TomT0m. The link you wanted to use is Brazil (1985 film). I wish I could delete the shortened "happy ending" version from my memory - heehee. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 19:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, you're right - four minutes between the tag and the deletion is pretty tight and may set some kind of record! I'm sorry the procedure worked so poorly for you. Please don't take it personally. Now that we are where we are, is there something you would like me to do? I can copy your contestation over to Ritchie's page, if you would like (so that you don't have to reconstruct it). --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I clicked on the link that is proposed in the message announcing the deletion. Reading just a few links about what was required for a contestation it was already too late. Said differently, in a so short notice that message is useless or the procedure is totally dysfunctional, only a really hard core wikipedian can answer in less than 10 minutes. This is kind of weird because the contestation of a speedy deletion is far more easy than to ask for a page restauration. Plus I find totally rude to have a message deleted without a single explanation. Not that I so much care about the article, although I feel that there is room for it in here, but I feel a little bit like in Brazil in here ;) TomT0m (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Bow Group page - protection
Dear MelanieN,
Thank you for having taken action to lock the Bow Group Wikipedia Page. As you know, it has recently been the subject of an editing war by persons intent on presenting false information about the Group. We have had e-mail correspondence with Sam Tarling regarding this matter.
However, your lock has left the Group's Page with the very same erroneous and malicious information which we have been attempting to change. This includes an article from 2014 being used to support a story in 2015 an underhand attempt to damage the reputation of our Chairman.
On behalf of the Bow Group, I would like to kindly request that you revert the Page to my "StrangeFacts"' last edit, as this contains accurate information which has actually occurred, such as the passing of our Senior Patron Lord Geoffrey Howe, as well as our recent policy contributions.
I had made two prior accounts to correct these changes (Secretary of the Bow Group & BlueBulldog45), however, these accounts were both blocked, hence the need to make this "StrangeFacts" third account. I assume that the same persons with a deliberate agenda against the Group were responsible for this; hence the apparent "sock puppetry" for edits.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely, Office Manager, The Bow Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrangeFacts (talk • contribs) 10:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is related to the Connerdn SPI, which I pinged you about. GABHello! 14:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- @StrangeFacts: Since you admit to being a sockpuppet, I am not inclined to do as you ask. Continued sockpuppetry is not likely to achieve what you want. Plus, you have a conflict of interest and should not normally be editing the article in any case. However, if you weren't a sockpuppet, and if you feel your proposed edits have merit, you could post on the article's talk page, using the {{edit semi-protected}} tag and asking for someone to add the information to the article.There's a chance someone might be willing to add the factual information (change in key people? death of
chairsenior patron?) if it is sourced to a reference. Wikipedia does not like non-neutral language like "smear campaign", so I think you can forget about adding that stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)- The sockpuppets were correct in that the Telegraph reference was given as the wrong year. However, I've removed the sentence containing this reference, as I consider that the article should stick to matters relating to the Bow Group as a group, not to the chairman personally. I've restored some of the other factual matter, but yes the Bow Group personnel should confine themselves to the talk page and not use any further accounts: Noyster (talk), 19:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- @StrangeFacts: Since you admit to being a sockpuppet, I am not inclined to do as you ask. Continued sockpuppetry is not likely to achieve what you want. Plus, you have a conflict of interest and should not normally be editing the article in any case. However, if you weren't a sockpuppet, and if you feel your proposed edits have merit, you could post on the article's talk page, using the {{edit semi-protected}} tag and asking for someone to add the information to the article.There's a chance someone might be willing to add the factual information (change in key people? death of
WP:Articles for deletion/AWK Solutions
you have mentioned "The result was delete. The "keep" arguments by the Special Purpose Accounts are not convincing. MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)". For the sake of argument let me agree, that all references posted in the article are not notable. Now please tell me 1 thing ? How come the article Pollard's Chicken exists in Wikipedia without any issue. Dont you think you need to revisit your criteria for deletion ? I can provide you many more examples like this in wikipedia. Or is it just a selective decision based on the editor's whimsy and monopoly ? At least please be honest. No diplomacy please.Startupindia (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note, User:Startupindia. I see that Pollard's Chicken has now been proposed for deletion. There are a lot of articles here that shouldn't be here, and when we find them we delete them. But since there are 5 million articles here, we don't always find them. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your response, my freind. I saw this coming from your end. Look into the version history of Pollard's Chicken, the page was created on 5th April 2011 and the deletion status was tagged just 2 days a ago (After someone raised the point in the AFD AWK Solutions page). Surprised that a article like this stayed for 5 years, before it gets noticed (after giving the name as reference).
Few more embarrassing examples for you. Big Chicken, Bush's Chicken, Chicken Express, The Chicken Rice Shop. Let me know if you need more examples. Putting this articles for deletion (after someone raises a point like me), is not justice done. This articles are present in wiki, since long 6 to 7 years back and the purpose for this articles ( to have a wiki presence ) has been achieved long back.
in the deletion page, someone highlighted few sentences that were sounding very promotional in nature. So accordingly, I was on the process for getting those sentences removed and rectify it accordingly. But you didnt even give the chance for this, as you deleted it on 25th Feb. Please dont misunderstand me, I am not blaming you personally, as wouldn't have known, what i was planing to do.
Do you still think, that AWK Solutions is not fit for wikipedia ????? Over to you !!! Startupindia (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:Startupindia, if you are trying to get the article restored, you are going about it all wrong. "Well, look, all these other articles are crap too!" is a classic example of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - usually abbreviated as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It may result in the other articles getting deleted (I'll take a look at them, if someone hasn't beat me to it). But getting other, equally bad or worse articles deleted does nothing to bring your article back. You could point out bad articles from now till Christmas, and it wouldn't do a thing to restore your article. Maybe what you are actually trying to say, is that you would like a chance to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia's standards; is that right? Let's talk about that. Wikipedia's standards for a company to have an article here are defined, very clearly, at WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The reason for deleting this article, as expressed at the discussion, was that the company does not meet those standards. People said "References are mostly self-published or press releases and do not establish notability." "I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources (in a Google search). Google results are mostly unrelated or social media. The article is no help, as it's just press releases." "Your article has 12 references -- 2 from AWK's home page, 4 from social media, 3 press releases (published on sites that exist solely for the publication press releases), a directory entry, and two that don't mention AWK at all. None are from indendent, reputable sources." "This is obviously self-promotional and non-notable, all of the "news" sources are links to the same press release from the company." "The sources cited here are all press releases, from what I can tell, and eight of them have almost exactly the same title, meaning that if they aren't press releases, they are re-hashed press releases. The text is highly promotional, with statements like: "their solutions and development are perhaps the best in the segment" "delivered some of the best solutions in this new dimensional segment". I honestly think the article would be speedy deleted as PROMO." These quotes tells you, very clearly, what you would have to fix to make the article acceptable: add sources that provide significant coverage from independent reliable sources, get rid of the press releases (because they are not independent sources), and get rid of the promotional language. Do you actually have any such sources? Do you think, if given the chance, you could improve the article sufficiently to demonstrate that AWK Solutions meets those criteria? --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Meanwhile I took a quick look at the restaurants you tagged here.
Regarding Big Chicken: just now in a search I found multiple sources and I will add them. The fact that it has multiple independent reliable sources means that it deserves an article, even if the sources hadn't yet been added to the article. Thanks for calling this article to my attention; it has been tagged as needing better sources since 2009!
Bush's Chicken has two independent references, and in a search I found a couple more. But they are minimal and it should probably go. Things like youtube, yelp, Facebook, etc. do not count toward notability.
Chicken Express - same as above.
The Chicken Rice Shop gets a lot of news coverage [13]; I'll have to check further to see if the coverage is significant.
All four of them have at least some independent sources - unlike AWK. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation. If that is the case, as you have explained, please guide me so that i can meet the wiki guidelines.Startupindia (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I thought you'd never ask. 0;-D What I can do, is to recreate the article as a draft, in your private userspace rather than the encyclopedia. That's called userfication. There you can work on it: add independent sources if you can find them, and delete the promotionalism. Since the article will be in your private space, it will not get deleted while you work on it. When you think you have improved it enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP, ask me or any other administrator to take a look at it. If we think it is improved enough, we will tell you how to move it into the main encyclopedia. Warning: If you try to move it into the encyclopedia WITHOUT improving it significantly, it will probably get speedy-deleted under the guideline known as WP:G4 - recreating an article that was deleted by an AfD discussion. Give me a minute to set this up. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your support. In fact I have created the article in my user-space yesterday. I will modify the article accordingly and updated all possible references. Once i am done, I would like to disturb you for its review and no one else, since i am having a discussion with you and because of your supportive attitude..
Sometimes I feel that Wikipedia has is more strict than the US NAVY SEALS :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startupindia (talk • contribs) 08:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sure,, Startupindia, I'll be glad to take a look at your improved article and advise. Let me know when you think it might be ready. It does seem like Wikipedia has a lot of rules, but it has to. That's the only way to maintain its reputation as a valuable and accurate resource. --MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks, MelanieN, for such a lovely surprise. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Martin; very well deserved. You probably shouldn't belong to any club that would have ME as a member, either. (Actually I saw this note from you, not knowing the award had been given, and I thought "uh oh, what did I do now???") --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- "A likely story — and probably true." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Invitation
Hello, MelanieN.
You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics. |
- Not sure if I've sent you an invitation before or not. Check out the project! North America1000 20:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the invitation, North, but I think I'll pass for now. I kind of have my hands full with other things. Anyhow you seem to have the "food and drink" subjects well under control. I'm amazed at some of the things you come up with! --MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Aah, well, keep it in mind for the future. I remember you working on various beer-related topics a while back, so you seemed like a potential candidate for joining. Thanks for your compliments, which are nice and appreciated. North America1000 14:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I am still the "San Diego beer guru" here. Not sure if it's because I love San Diego or because I love beer, but I can't resist the intersection of the two. But I'll have to leave it at that for now.--MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- O.B. and the beach, pier, bars/restaurants there are fun. North America1000 14:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- – Forgot to mention regarding your notion above of my supposedly having the ""food and drink" subjects well under control" that nothing could be further from the truth. The project presently has 34,340 articles under its umbrella. Check out the new March 2016 project newsletter for more info. Anyway, just wanted to mention that. Also, if you're interested, you can subscribe to the newsletter at the notifications page even if you don't join. I'll stop bothering you now.....Cheers! North America1000 17:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I am still the "San Diego beer guru" here. Not sure if it's because I love San Diego or because I love beer, but I can't resist the intersection of the two. But I'll have to leave it at that for now.--MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Aah, well, keep it in mind for the future. I remember you working on various beer-related topics a while back, so you seemed like a potential candidate for joining. Thanks for your compliments, which are nice and appreciated. North America1000 14:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invitation, North, but I think I'll pass for now. I kind of have my hands full with other things. Anyhow you seem to have the "food and drink" subjects well under control. I'm amazed at some of the things you come up with! --MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of Destiny Wrestling Organization
Trying to figure out why the page for Destiny Wrestling Organization was deleted. Can it be restored?--Adamtox31 (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Adamtox31, and thanks for your note! I'll reply at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cordelia_Mendoza_(second_nomination)
Just an FYI that another editor (most likely a paid editor given their history) is essentially !voting for you by proxy on the aforementioned AfD. You may feel the same regarding the article as you did six years ago, but I thought you'd want to know in any case. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jamie, I'm on it. I am in discussion with the author and may comment later at the AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Protection for all
Happy St Pat's M. I saw this and it made me think that their are 31 other football teams that wish their QB's could be protected from J.J. as easily :-) Sláinte. MarnetteD|Talk 21:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- LOL! In this case it's J.J. who is getting the protection, and I suspect he gets mighty little of that on the football field. Thanks for the laugh. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy tags
Hi,
I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask, but as someone who's participated in my speedy removal discussions, can you look into the behaviour of User:Lifesavers2004 on Lagniappe Films and User_talk:Adam9007#March_2016. He seems to be under the impression that we're not allowed to remove them and has posted false warnings on my talk page. The user page also says he's an admin, which I highly doubt. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pardon the interruption. @Adam9007: This administrator (me) has left a message on your talk page about removing the speedy tags and removing the notices. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Barnstar of Recovery | ||
for your expert editing of the Ocean Beach Antique District article and all it entailed in preparation for the redirect as an alternative to deletion. AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC) |
- You're welcome. I'm glad we found a way to avoid deleting it. You (and I) worked hard on that article, and now at least the name - and the history - and some of the information - are preserved. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- My sentiments exactly! Thank you again. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI
Just saw this. Figured (if it's not you) you might be 'interested'. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 22:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the alert, Voidwalker. It's been dealt with. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
So hey
What is it like pushing kkk viewpoints through your sockpuppet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.132.165 (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Allahdad Bohyo
I was just curious about the deletion of page Allahdad Bohyo.... can you undelete it.. Mr. Bohyo is the most notable liguist personality of Sindhi language...kindly undelete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkali (talk • contribs) 20:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note, Thinkali. I can't find a page with that title - Allahdad Bohyo - except for one that was deleted in 2006. And I can't find anything similar in my recent deletions. Can you give the exact title of the page you are talking about? --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, is this what you are talking about? This is a note you recently added to the talk page of the deletion discussion from 2006. That talk page hasn't been deleted, but it will be. That's not where this kind of request belongs, and it is ten years too late to prevent the article from being deleted. If you think there should be an article about Allahdad Bohyo you will have to write it. See WP:Your first article. You could start one as a draft, for example at Draft:Allahdad Boyho. The article will have to meet the requirements of WP:GNG by having references showing significant coverage or writing about him in books, journals, news, magazines, etc. If such coverage does not exist, the article will not be kept. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
PVJ
Moved this from his/her talkpage - I think it's better to discuss it here. SQLQuery me! 11:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't really seek a rebuttal. My only real issue with this whole thing was ever the length of the block, and how quickly it was applied from the AN/I posting. Which the blocking admin was willing to work on correcting - so honestly I don't see any harm done. I've been there before too, and I'll probably be there again soon. SQLQuery me! 10:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @SQL: That's fine. The "length of the block", and for that matter my ANI report, were because the actions of the ISP, appearing immediately after the 48-hour block was imposed, appeared to show a classic block-evasion pattern. The other ISP activity, the stuff attacking PVJ, appeared only AFTER the 3-month block was imposed. But at this point I think the only thing that matters is his current behavior - and what it demonstrates about whether he learned anything from the 48 hour block. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
GAB's talk page
Please could you RevDel my edit, also? I've noticed the BLP vio appears in the diff... thanks in advance. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- You have already done it, it seems - thank you. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. I had to revdel the intervening bot edit, too, since the deleted information could be read there. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Deletion review for Austin Wade Petersen
Hamez0 has asked for a deletion review of Austin Wade Petersen. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 23:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
AfD
Hi MelanieN: A recent edit you performed at AfD has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America1000 04:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Got me! How many others did you get? --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Been having a decent "success rate" thus far...North America1000 14:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's the bottom line
- Wikipedia goes nuts
- On April Fools.
- "Verifiability" is replaced by
- "Ignore all rules".
- The main page today
- Is full of baloney.
- Every DYK is true
- But also phony.
- I fell for your joke.
- That makes me a chump.
- I think I'll protest
- At Village Pump.[14]
April Fools
FYI, there was a lot of disputation about proper April Fools' Day behavior eight years ago, which I addressed here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, what a great link! I hope every stalker here follows it. Brad, I bow to your amazing talent, and to the ingenuity of the people who replied to you. And I venture to disagree with Mr. Pope and say that NOT every poet is a fool. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:NCOLLATH
I made a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposed replacement for WP:NCOLLATH and based on the earlier discussion we were all having I wanted to put it on your radar.RonSigPi (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Passive Frame Theory Deletion Notice
Hello, MelanieN! I cannot quarrel with the deletion of the article Passive Frame Theory because I lack the resources to do so. However, I find the comment you left regarding the deletion to have unnecessarily negative implications: "...No evidence that this new 'theory' by a minor academic has attracted any attention whatsoever.)" While the article may in fact not be appropriate, I don't think it is correct to put 'theory' in quotes nor to refer to Ezequiel Morsella (who is cited in several other articles) as a minor academic. Although I lack the time to be thorough, I will say that Morsella's theory and his work have indeed attracted quite some attention, and the word "whatsoever" seems gratuitous. I hope you will consider changing this to make it more neutral. Both he and his theory may achieve world fame tomorrow, and that is potentially embarrassing.
I don't know how to use the talk pages and apologize in advance for poor form. I don't know where to put the four tildes. dbershatsky (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, dbershatsky, and thanks for your note. I'm sorry if you were offended by the description of the subject. It is not possible to change the edit summary. (Those were not actually my words, but the words of the person who nominated it for deletion; their rationale is automatically put into the edit summary when it is deleted.) The description was a little harsh but not far off the mark. The author has published a fair amount, but he is early in his career, an associate professor. And the Passive Frame Theory was a brand new publication at the time the article was written, so naturally it had not yet attracted any attention. I just checked Google Scholar and found Morsella's paper is still the only paper to use that phrase; Morsella's paper has now been cited a total of 9 times - still not enough for an article. BTW you used the talk page exactly right and signed your comment correctly. --MelanieN (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Easter126
Sorry for disturbing again, but log file is:
14:15, 26 March 2016 MelanieN (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Easter126 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (On second thought, more reasonable time)
13:51, 26 March 2016 MelanieN (talk | contribs) blocked Easter126 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment)
see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Easter126 and checkuser de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Benutzer:Styron111,Patriska2601,Helde43, Benutzer:Schitty666,Schmidtrach2]
Schmitty (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ah yes, now I remember. They had made very few edits - a couple of edits about Stuart Styron, and then a bunch of personal attacks for which they were blocked. They do sound sort of DUCKish, but I think I will wait and see what happens when the block expires in June. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- These https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/2.243.198.61 Edits were fully deleted. Bad Words translated like "Childf*cker" "Schmitty will die" and so on. The IP was also active here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malcolmxl5&diff=prev&oldid=714549543
- On DE:WP very bad harrassment, threats with danger, at se same time here "choosing the good path(TM)". Why a tenth Chance?Schmitty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you so eager to get this user permanently banned here on en.wiki, where they have not been CU'd and where they have not said a word against you? Anyhow, they are supposedly one small part of a huge sockfarm; in my experience sockmasters rarely return to their discarded socks. If they do, I am watching this user and the next block will be permanent. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- User_talk:Widefox#before_starting_a_friendship_with_Schmitty_Check_deeper_who_he_is and User_talk:Malcolmxl5#hello/User_talk:Malcolmxl5#Schmitty
- but i asked you to reconsider, if you dont want, ok.Schmitty (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I will watchlist that IP also. They have been warned, so any further stalking of you or negative comments about should result in some action. Look, I can see you are being harassed on two Wikipedias, and that is definitely a problem. I just don't see how extending the block on Easter126 is going to do anything to prevent it. Easter126 has not said anything about you - not at this wiki and not at the German wiki. And there is no evidence linking them to the IP. --MelanieN (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you so eager to get this user permanently banned here on en.wiki, where they have not been CU'd and where they have not said a word against you? Anyhow, they are supposedly one small part of a huge sockfarm; in my experience sockmasters rarely return to their discarded socks. If they do, I am watching this user and the next block will be permanent. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Korea
The protection of Korea doesn't seem to have quite taken. Fresh IP vandal this morning. Just FYI. TimothyJosephWood 12:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Timothy. Thanks for your note. The type of protection I imposed is WP:Pending changes protection. That means that an IP or anyone can make an edit, but the edit doesn't "take" - doesn't become fully visible - until it is either accepted or rejected by an established editor. PC protection is used for an article where vandalism is persistent over a long term but not terribly frequent; if it is too frequent, the burden becomes too great for established users to monitor all the IP edits. This article seemed to me to be a candidate for PC protection, because vandalism (or in this case edit warring over the name of the sea) was kind of spread out over time - and because it looked to me as if IPs were also making constructive edits. But if the disruptive edits continue, let me know and I will add semi-protection for a while. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Got it. I thought you semi'd. Should have looked closer before I popped over here. TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Timothy, I just looked at the PC policy page again, and was reminded that a person needs to have the Reviewer user right in order to accept or reject an edit. I see that you don't have the Reviewer right, but I can give it to you if you want. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, why not. TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Timothy, I just looked at the PC policy page again, and was reminded that a person needs to have the Reviewer user right in order to accept or reject an edit. I see that you don't have the Reviewer right, but I can give it to you if you want. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Got it. I thought you semi'd. Should have looked closer before I popped over here. TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)