User talk:MelanieN

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)

Wow, and here it is again [1] in a separate story about the same issue. Think I'm notable yet? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 14 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:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Complaint About Editors' Behavior In Victoria Pynchon Deletion Discussion

Pernoctus (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I modified the link for the record when the discussion was archived. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hey there; as thanks for your great articles, I've granted you the "autopatrolled" userright :). Keep up the good work! Ironholds (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem! The articles you've been writing are awesome :). Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2012 (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#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)#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)#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."

Article titles

It wasn't a comment that I deleted, it was an erroneous notice to "centralize" the discussion, when they're separate discussions:

FYI

 – There's an active RfC about this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Comics#rfc2, so please centralize discussion there.

This can only cause confusion at an RfC that has already been rebooted once due to confusion. Please revert your revert. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if the notice you disagree with has already been dealt with in the usual way - by commenting on it, disagreeing with it, discussing it. Other options would include asking the person who inserted the notice to remove it, or inserting a counter-notice. That's the Wikipedia way. Deleting the person's edit isn't. --MelanieN (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN

So? Should I ask someone to take Synthetic DNA for ITN? Jim Carter ^(talk) 19:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I just did. Hope I did it right. Thanks though! --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a minor mistake, which I fixed now. BTW someone has raised a possible issue please take a look at the nomination page. Cheers, Jim Carter ^(talk) 20:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic DNA

Hi Melanie... there are already a bunch of related articles on this. Drbogdan added news of this to them last night (see that user's contribs), and I followed after and moderated those additions. In light of articles we already have like Synthetic biology (which is the key article for the news piece, Expanded genetic code (which needs a ton of work), and especially Nucleic acid analogue which is exactly analogous to the article you created on Synthetic DNA, I don't think we need the new article. Would you be OK merging Synthetic DNA into Nucleic acid analogue? Additionally, as per WP:MEDRS content on this kind of thing should receive minimal weight until there are scientific secondary sources that discuss it -- many things in biology turn out not to be replicable by other groups (has happened many times in the stem cell field, for example, where big splashy news turned out to based on papers that were later retracted. We are WP:NOTNEWS especially with regard to biomedical science. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Jytdog. I looked all over for any coverage of this before creating the article; I couldn't find it in any logical place and was puzzled why nobody had reported it. Apparently that was because it was buried under titles where no one would think to look. "Nucleic acid analogue" is a horrible and inaccurate title; these are nucleic acids chemically, not something else that resembles a nucleic acid. "Synthetic DNA" is a much better title IMO. (I guess as long as it remained as a redirect, people would be able to find the information.) The article "Expanded genetic code" could be a target, except that it is written in science-ese too dense for the average reader. About a merge/redirect, I need to think about it and get input from additional people. Offhand I'm inclined to think we need an article under a WP:Common name. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks for talking. i agree that the whole suite of synthetic biology articles is too technically written and really needs to be knit together to make a coherent whole. i don't really care which way a merge would go but we have two completely overlapping articles now. actually Nucleic acid analogue cannot be merged into "synthetic DNA" because the "nucleic acid analogue" article talks about RNA too; it has to be the other way. This is pretty hardcore biology stuff and I don't know how much you know about biology. When you get down into detail like this (and this is indeed pretty drilled-down detail) the information is technical. I am sorry that you didn't find the content that was created last night, but again I am not sure how much you understood of what you were looking at... please don't be offended I am not trying to be a dick but competence does matter when dealing with technical stuff like this. I do agree that the current articles need to be written less technically! There is so much work to be done in many many of the biology articles and there are not nearly as many editors working on them as there on, say, video games. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to defend my competence, but just so you know: my degree is in chemistry and I have worked in the medical lab field for many years. I am not a molecular biologist, but someone with my background should have been able to find the information - and should be regarded as capable of writing about it. I believe Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in a way that would be understandable to an average college graduate, at least; if one needs a degree in the field to understand what the article is saying, then it needs to be rewritten. And if one needs ESP to find the information because of the article title that has been chosen, that is also not the way Wikipedia should work. I assure you I spent 20 minutes looking to see if anyone had written anything on this subject, before I decided to write an article. As you saw, I did find the article "Artificial gene synthesis," a fairly obvious target - and when even that hadn't been updated I decided no one had done anything.

For your part, I notice a very strong element of WP:OWNERSHIP when it comes to medical and scientific articles, and I hope that isn't going to be a barrier to our working together. I have also been a professional medical writer, rewriter and editor, so I could be of some help in reducing jargon and putting articles into shape where they could be read by a reasonably educated layperson - but not if someone like you feels entitled to overrule every decision and revert everything that doesn't meet your standards. (Might your attitude be part of the reason why there are "not nearly as many editors working on" biology articles? Give it some thought.)

Actually I see that you have already proposed the merger, since I didn't immediately agree to it, so there may not be much need for further discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog, MelanieN, Drbogdan: Hello, I'd like to read more on this development before I comment or edit the new entries. There are not many qualified editors in this subject so I really look forward to enjoy an easy-going collaboration. Two things: Do you have a copy or access to the whole article? This one is behind a paywall. The other thing is that I think that we should use both the WP:Common name and the technical name (to be determined); at the moment, my suggestion is to write it now as a section in Synthetic biology and later, create its own article with a technical descriptive name for precision. I agree in that "analogue" is incorrect, as the new nucleobases are not competing or substituting for an exiting one (they seem to be an expansion of the 4 natural nucleobases), and "expanded genome" should include genomic RNA, which is not quite this case. I hope I will be more useful in the days to come as I read the new literature and your current edits. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Melanie I apparently did insult you. Sorry about that. Hopefully we can indeed work together productively. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

to me, it is away out of bounds to cite someone's struck comment, as you did here with regard to my remarks above. hence, outta here. again sorry to have upset you and that we got off on a bad foot. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, was that the problem? OK, sorry. I have fixed it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello MelanieN, I want to acknowledge your skills at writing a very complex molecular biology article while using easy to understand terminology. Not an easy task on such subject; it takes guts and higher education. As you are aware, we will likely be doing either a merge or a move, but your great text will remain. I hope you don't mind this natural evolution of Wiki articles :-). Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. So you are a Biologist? Jim Carter ^(talk) 18:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No. My degree is in chemistry, but I have worked in the medical laboratory field for a long time. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to know that we have a good chemist with us :) Jim Carter ^(talk) 20:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are willing...

Not that I have made any secret of this issue/these issues, I would still like to discuss them with you without fear of retribution. If you are willing, can you email me? Thank you.... Dr. Matt PresidentistVB (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

PresidentistVB, whoever you are - I have no idea what you are talking about. You must have the wrong person. --MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(I minored in Chem at William & Mary, just FYI.) I saw you as a commentator/admin? in the IRS Scandal WP:NPOVNAMING section of the NPOV Noticeboard, and I thought I read where you stated the IRS (Scandal) title did not meet the NPOV requirements. I have a title I was hoping you would look at in order to render a decision. I think it, too, is biased. That's all... I thought I sent you an email. Apologies, if this Is still the wrong person. Thanks. Dr. Matt PresidentistVB (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK. You didn't send me an email because I don't have email enabled here. But you are welcome to join in the discussion, or to propose your alternate title here on my talk page if you prefer not to take part in the discussion. Or to forward your comments to someone else in the discussion who has email enabled. --MelanieN (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am attempting to have the page's editors and significant contributors evaluate the issues of WP:POVNAMING and WP:POVTITLE evaluated from within. I have also appended a set of policies and guidelines as the first section of the talk page, using my Wiki-Watch Administrator designation. You can email me internally by locating the "email this user" from my user page tools. I am hesitant to identify the page, although it should be easy for you to find, because I do not want to be one of those who have initiated formal complaints. I just know the title itself is clearly biased. Hmmm... PS. I was born in San Diego. Dr. Matt 11:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anubrata Mandal

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Pio Rehpotsirc

i quit :-) how can i delete my user page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pio Rehpotsirc (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ask an admin, and they might do it for you. However, you'd have to be polite, and not edit poorly, as it's at their discretion. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 00:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

2011 end times prediction

One the wording of the lead, it is not necessarily "standard style for the lead sentence to begin by citing the article title in boldface and defining it". There are exceptions, please see WP:BEGIN.--ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, ukexpat. I see that it isn't absolutely required - especially in cases where the title is descriptive, as this one is. However, I think it is still best in most cases to define what the subject is / what the title means. I think the current version does that without being too awkward, but I'd be happy to look at other ways of handling it. Should we do that on the article's talk page rather than here? --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I am not sure what other ways there are other than the current version and my (slight) rewording.--ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Your intelligence

Since User:Omnedon has claimed that I've attacked your intelligence, I just want to say for the record that nothing I've ever thought much less said questioned or attacked your intelligence. I do wonder whether you read the Move Review statement since you claimed we were "rearguing the case", but this was not attacking nor questioning your intelligence. If you don't understand the issues raised at the move review, I'm sure it's due to a lack of reading and/or thinking about the issues raised in the statement, not due to a lack of intelligence. I hope you understand. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 17:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't take it as an insult. In fact I would not have responded to your comments at all. You can ask questions if you want, but I am not obligated to answer them - or to explain my reasons for not answering them. Thanks for the note. --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

See? A very intelligent response. We're in complete agreement on this. No obligation to answer. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 18:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the notification.

I'm going to take no action there, and instead defer to community processes.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

masterstrack.com

The validity of masterstrack.com is currently being questioned Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#masterstrack.com. And editor is accusing it of being an unreliable source. You have used masterstrack.com as a reference in your editing. I would like to invite your comment. Trackinfo (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

dpapa187

Hi Melanie. Thanks for your help in regards to the AG leventis article. So i created a new one, care to check it out? I think this is what you wanted? Bare with me never used wikipedia to work on. Need to get this out for the company though. So i'll need all the help possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dpapa187/A.G._Leventis_Nigeria_Plc

here's my draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpapa187 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)