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)

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#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."

Jon Stewart

First, I didn't initiate an "edit war." I posted some information which was severely changed or deleted, and I put it back up.

I didn't call Stewart a "tool" or "shifty." David Zurawik, respected media critic of The Baltimore Sun, made the comments. I reported what the critic said. The critic made the comments on MediaBuzz, a program on Fox News about the media hosted by respected media critic Howie Kurtz. The comments were made in context of the story first reported by Samuelsohn of Politico. Also some guy named RexxS deleted my post about Stewart crossing a line imitating Herman Cain. That's not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impartial Scholar (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Impartial Scholar: As I keep telling you - the place to discuss this is the talk page of the article, Talk:Jon Stewart. Posting notes on the talk pages of individual editors is not going to help. Here's how things work here: material used at Wikipedia has to be neutral. It has to be verifiable based on independent reliable sources. And it has to be important enough to include. These rules are interpreted by the community through consensus; consensus is developed by discussion at the talk page. For now, several different people have removed the Fox News comments, suggesting that the current consensus is not to include them. You are free to argue your case for including them, and maybe you will get the consensus to agree with you. But the place to develop that consensus is at the article's talk page. You must NOT keep re-adding it; that is the very definition of an edit war. Edit warring is a no-no here, regardless of who is "right".

By the way, when you post on a talk page you should sign your comment. The way to do that is to add four tildes, like this ~~~~, which will automatically generate your signature and a date/time stamp. You can find the tildes as the capital of the key to the left of "1", right under the "escape" key. Even easier, you can put your cursor at the end of your comments and then click on the signature button. It's in that row of buttons above the editing window, and it looks like a signature. Here's what I get when I do that: --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Mujaddid

Thanks. That's what I wanted to do but was unsure how much crap I would take for reverting before protecting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL, usually YOU are the bold one and I am the timid one! Before I full-protect I always try to revert to the last stable version (but of course that is impossible because it violates the rule at WP:WRONG). I also scolded them on the article's talk page and posted 3RR warnings to several of them. We'll see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting re-instatement of the indefinite semi-protection following the recent expiration of full protection. Thanks. --Peaceworld 15:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the article has required semiprotection almost continuously, so I will reinstate it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Greyshirt

Hi Melanie - hope all's well.

I see you did work on moving and cleaning up Greyshirt. I hate to cause extra work, but would you please undo those moves? I talked with the non-admin closer of the RM here, and they agreed that the discussion could be reopened. But it can't go back to the previous status quo without admin help. I hate to do it, because if it closes again in the same direction, this would be needless, but that's where we are. I can then undo the close, as Kwami allowed. Let me know if you have a different suggestion. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Dohn joe. Let's do this: go ahead and re-open the discussion, if you like, but let's leave the move the way it is for now. If you want I can come to the discussion and explain what I did. If consensus develops to go back to the previous situation, or to some third situation, I'll do or undo the moves then. But for now it won't hurt anything to leave them moved. Fair enough? --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. The only thing I'd ask is that if the final answer is "no consensus" that we return to where things had been. Thanks Melanie. Dohn joe (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I inserted an explanation of the history and the current situation (please correct me if I got anything wrong), and I added an area for new discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with article Utigurs

Hello,

Could you please help me with the article "Utigurs" (as you helped not long ago) ? During the past few weeks I have improved the article substantially, but it is constantly under attack of different users who have tried to delete information or to put different tags on the article without any real reason just because they don't like the presented information. The problem with this article is that Utigurs were actually Huns and most scholars associate them with the Bulgars. This information is presented in the article in a neutral way and the best scholars and scientists ( as Edward Gibbon, Maenchen -Helfen and Steven Runciman ) are cited to support the information. There have always been claims from different people and nations to have some connection with the Huns. It is not my fault that all the scientists and historians always have connected the Utigur Huns with the Bulgars, from 18th century historian Edward Gibbon up to the latest book about the Huns by Hyun Jin Kim (2013). I can understand that this may infuriate many people, but Wikipedia is not a place to present nationalistic, personal or other claims under the false disguise that the article is presenting fringe theories, what is the last tag put on the article by a user with a nickname Crovata. Actually the article do presents the mainstream view, as you can see by reading it by yourself. Yesterday information was added that the Huns can probably be traced back to north China using artificial skull deformation of circular type, it is supported by scientific paper. This information is also on the article Huns. If someone doesn't like the results from a scientific paper, it doesn't mean that he/she can delete it or put unwarranted tags on the article. Actually such action is an attempt to vandalize the article.

Thank you for your time and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.112.239 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your note. I really can't help you with this article. If I semi-protect it, as I did before, the result will be to ban YOU from editing the article - while leaving the registered users free to edit. I don't think that's what you want. This is basically a content dispute, with you presenting ideas and sources that the other users don't accept. Wikipedia works by WP:Consensus, and if you are the only one presenting your ideas, with multiple other people opposing, your ideas are simply not going to be in the article. Presenting your argument to me won't help you; I am not familiar enough with this field to take part in the discussion.

You have made a good start by posting at the article's talk page; that's the first step. People are reasonable, and they will listen to and evaluate your point of view. If you have no luck there, you could ask for help at WT:WikiProject Bulgaria or WT:WikiProject Central Asia. But be warned: if "most scholars" believe something and you believe something different, Wikipedia is going to accept the position of "most scholars". Wikipedia may or may not accept the results of a single scientific paper; it depends on the credentials of the author, how often the paper is cited, and similar considerations. Wikipedia mostly reflects the mainstream consensus of scholars; it may or may not present minority views depending on how much support there is for them. See WP:GREATWRONGS. And be careful not to edit war; you can get blocked for edit warring even if you are sure you are right. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN, you answered to him very well, but believe me, if he is who I assume to be, he already heard this from me and other editors, but he won't listen. I am not surprised he contacted you as the user I assume is related to already done a similar thing. The article is in horrible shape, most of the claims the IP stated are not generally accepted and they need to be written according their weight (NPOV), or are totally incorrect (weren't Huns). The template must be there for the readers sake. I'm currently writing the new revision of the article, probably will post it today or tomorrow, and you will see what reliable and mainstream (not outdated and very minor) scholars consider on Utigurs. Note that the IP '46.40.112.239' has almost the same behaviour, POV, editing and use of sources as '188.254.217.159', and recently blocked '93.152.143.113' (removed template and wrote an improper comment on my talk page) and User:PavelStaykov. --Crovata (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Crovata should: 1) removed the template himself because he didn't give any reason for putting it or 2) he could enlighten us what is this "mainstream view"(as the template states) about the origin of the Huns and Utigurs ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.112.239 (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

Thanks for your response here. The discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Qadiani instead. I didn't mention that but I think it should be clear from the talk that it is offensive.--Peaceworld 08:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, sorry. There was no discussion at the Ahmadiyya talk page. If you ask for protection of a page again, maybe you could put a note on its talk page, cross-referencing the other discussion - just to show that discussion is going on somewhere. I must say, though, that the discussion there isn't very convincing - because it is all just assertion, no links or evidence. "I say this." "No, I say that". If you could find any kind of reliable source saying the term is offensive, that would help a lot. As it is, you are saying it is offensive "because I say so", vs. the other side being able to cite the government of Pakistan as a source. You point out that the Pakistani government disapproves of the group, but that doesn't show that the term itself is offensive. Please understand, I'm not disagreeing with you or disbelieving you. I'm just saying that in a content dispute, the viewpoint that Wikipedia accepts is the viewpoint that has references to support it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that the Qadiani article does have a reference supporting the idea that the term "shows contempt". I don't know if it is a Reliable Source but it is at least a reference. If you would cite that reference whenever you get into these arguments about the term, it would help a lot. A possible compromise, at articles like Ahmadiyya, could be to say something like "Ahmadi Muslims are sometimes called "Qadiani", for example by the government of Pakistani, but the Ahmadis themselves find the term to be offensive." I see that Sakimonk put a sentence very much like that - "Although considered a slur" - into the Ahmadiyya article; are you OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. It's probably my fault. I tend to assume that admins and editors are aware of the context of the discussion. Besides that source, there is another RS by Human Rights Watch already provided by another editor. I think there is a difference between saying that "Ahmadis themselves find the term offensive" to saying that "the term is offensive", and it is the latter case according to sources. I don't believe that offensive terms have a place in articles, and particularly the lede, unless the discussion on the articles is concerning the actual term. The term has been mentioned in the context of a deplorable law (which I have discussed at Talk:Qadiani) strongly condemned by human rights orgs. [Edit:The point of discussion was to show that Pakistan government source isn't a reliable source for the identity of a group]--Peaceworld 15:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

tagging Sakimonk for a fairer outlook.--Peaceworld 15:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, but this discussion really needs to be at Talk:Ahmadiyya rather than here. If it isn't there, then "admins and editors" are NOT aware of the context of the dispute - and they can't be expected to find it here. (Remember than when you ask for help, at RFPP or dispute resolution or wherever, your request will almost certainly be handled by a person who knows little or nothing about the subject at hand.) I suggest you start a section at Talk:Ahmadiyya, outlining your position and sources, and stating specifically what you want to change in the article - and invite Sakimonk to discuss it there. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

sure.--Peaceworld 15:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to add one comment, with my interpretation of Wikipedia policy: WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Depending on context we may use words that are offensive to some. If a term is generally regarded as a racial or religious slur, we would not use it in Wikipedia's voice; thus, we would not show it as a synonym for the non-offensive term. If it is regarded as a slur but is used by a major source such as a national government, we should probably note both of those facts, together, somewhere in the article. That's pretty much what the existing sentence "Although considered a slur, the term qadiani is widely used in Pakistan and is the official term used by the government.[8]" does. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This fact belongs to the section Ahmadiyya#Persecution#Pakistan and not the lede.--Peaceworld 16:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Then say so in your comment at Talk:Ahmadiyya, where you are currently calling for the sentence to be removed. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

...with a bit of difference, "Although considered a slur, the term qadiani is widely used in Pakistan and is the official term used by the government".--Peaceworld 16:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

National Grand Lodge

Thanks for the heads-up. He seems to have added the speedy delete template by accident, and later taken it out. The Prince Hall National Grand Lodge article is clearly a duplicate. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for [[:{{{1}}}]]

An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{1}}}|deletion review]] of [[:{{{1}}}]]. 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. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 12 and the subject is "Associated RC10". --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Aww... and here I was, hoping this was some article about a fascinating new emoticon, and it turns out just to be a wikitext snafu? Sigh. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

rvt

You really didn't need to go to the trouble to revert on the temp restored article --you could just have copied it from the version in the history -- but no harm done DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. To me it was easier to revert to a version before the AfD template was added and before the temp-restored template was added. But I forgot to delete the categories from the userfied page. Oops! --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Supercentarians

You protected the wrong versions. Those edits were done by non-WOP members. They have no right to mess with the WOP projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The question of who is "right" is currently being worked out at several other venues. I believe you are familiar with them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for approving the semi-protecting for Shila Amzah page! Really appreciated it :) Aiman851 (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. The protection was needed. The unwanted edits were not just unsourced; they were violations of our WP:BLP policy. Let me know if the problem recurs And thanks for the strawberries! --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wonder if you might rethink Jean Dadario Burke?

I agree the article was pretty dismal, but the persons making the two delete votes, in my view, did not adequately research the article, and I don't think it is fair for Ms. Burke to get deleted because her article was substandard.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) The combination of in-depth treatment here, plus numerous daytime Emmy nominations and wins, a long career, suggest Burke was a real maker-and-shaker in the soap opera world.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: Thanks for your note. The consensus at the discussion was pretty clear, and the !voters are credible people who did suggest they had done research. But if you like, I can userfy it to you, so you can add sources and improve the article. Before resubmitting it you should probably ask me to take a look and compare it to the deleted article, so that I can certify that it is significantly different; otherwise it will likely get speedy deleted per WP:G4. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, Thanks for being open-minded. How about this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got it covered already! If you want to use that to create a new article, I'll put a note on the talk page saying that it is significantly different from the deleted article. Let me know when it's live. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok live here. Hope she survives, methinks she deserves it, hope you think similarly...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to thank you for protecting Category:Redirects from moves. Joys! – Painius  01:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can't imagine why that ever became a target, but Wikipedia moves in mysterious ways. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Note

Intruded. Good work at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 02:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice to know I have people picking up after me. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Braun and something else

He does seem to be in a bit of a spot. If that Facebook thing is right, we can expect a flood of candidates. Anyway, have a look at ANI thread 'Searching for deleted articles'. I seem to have sparked something off there... Peridon (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Great idea. I commented. For any interested stalkers, the discussion is actually at AN, not ANI. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Harry Braun got the Message

Dear MelanieN, Given the harsh personal criticism of you and many other Wikipedia editors, Harry Braun's revised Article [Harry W. Braun III] has removed all references and citations to his 2016 presidential campaign or any of his past Congressional or Presidential campaigns. His revised article only focuses on his scientific and engineering publications, references and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry W Braun III (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. have you taken a look at Donald Trump's Wikipedia page? Do you not find it "Promotional"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry W Braun III (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Melanie, I am indeed running for president in the Democratic Primary. Mesa Wind LLC is my company, which was the original developer of a $150 million, 120 MW, San Juan Mesa Wind project in New Mexico that was completed in 2005, at which point the controlling interest was sold to Edison Mission Energy, which provides Mesa Wind with a royalty for the commercial life of the project. Sustainable Partners International was a separate publications company in Phoenix Arizona that included myself and three other individuals: Pete Dixon and John Olson, who were printing specialists, and Lucy Hays who was a proof reader. However, SPI is no longer active.Harry W Braun III (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will fix it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Allah River page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

SPI assistance

Hey MelanieN, I know you have oodles of time (not) but wondering if you have a chance to look over Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baseerwar. Originally it looked like it was going to be only two accounts but as I started to look over the article histories, something else started to come out of the woodwork. I might need another set of eyes on this if it's as many accounts as Im unturning. I don't believe I'm the first to come across this editor, they likely have another archived SPI somewhere else. Mkdw^talk 00:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's all resolved for now. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 11:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the note. You caught me offline. (Yes, I do sleep sometimes.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you be of assistance or does this have to go through red tape?

You recently protected the Page Mujaddid. The concern was edit warring and constant vandalism. The article in question is a simple list linking to other articles. There is almost zero chance of any "new information" being found today which can be added to the said list style article. Therefore seeing that the only thing it is being used for is edit warring and constant vandalism , can you be kind enough to gold lock it for at least a couple of months? I'm quite aware that I should not be using your talkpage for requesting an admin action, but I just thought that as you protected the page before you may be able to protect it again without us having to go through a protection request. I can lodge a request if you want me to. RegardsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat, I'm sorry to see that edit warring has erupted again. But full protection is normally used only for very short periods, like a few days - usually to stop an active edit war in the hopes that the parties will talk. This seems more like a slow motion disagreement, with some discussion going on. At this point, I do not see so hot an edit war as to need full protection. Anyhow, I am not qualified to overrule all the participants and determine what the article should say over the long term. That is done among discussants at the talk page. The main rule is that anything contentious needs to have a reference supporting it. If there is no reference for a given statement or claim, and some people challenge it, it should probably not be in the article. If somebody insists on adding unsourced information which does not have consensus, the person could be reported to WP:3RR. Be aware that if the edit warring is a two-way reversion battle between two parties, both parties may end up blocked at 3RR. Edit warring is considered bad in itself, no matter who is "right" or "wrong". Sorry I couldn't be more help. (P.S. Looking at the history, I see that you are the one who is trying to add unsourced information. If I were to fully protect the article, it would be a version that does NOT include the sentence you are trying to add.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The two "mujaddids" of the fourteenth century are both extremist and heretical sectarianists who are rejected by the majority of sunni muslims. The rest of the actual mujaddids are all removed from the list because for some reason my edits are censored. Why is this? My version lists every single school of thought and is fully sourced and it is the most accurate. The current one is a POV car crash and embarrassing to even look at. Shame on you admin User:MelanieN for enabling such an abuse of the WP:BRD and violating WP:NPOV guidelines.Sakimonk ^talk 21:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN Thanks for pointing out the lack of sources. I have inserted them now.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Please take note of sectarian attack on Mujadid page which needs to be stopped. The comments made by Sakimonk displays his personal hatred towards these movements. In this situation he can't be expected to edit with neutral point of view. His language constitute violation of WP:Civil. Kindly take note of further vandalism by this editor. ScholarM (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have locked the page for three days and given advice on the talk page. Basically, you all need to stop editing based on your personal beliefs, and start editing based on what neutral reliable sources say. We require NEUTRAL sources - not adoring descriptions of a person written by his admirers, and not attacks on one sect of a religion written by another sect of the religion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for stopping edit Warring at Mujadid page. ScholarM (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, but it's the wrong barnstar. I didn't see any vandalism there - just strong differences of opinion. If we will all show respect for each other, I believe it will be possible to work out compromise language that everyone can accept. That's what the "page lock" is for, and that's what the talk page is for. --MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"I'm striking your bolded "Delete" because you already said "Delete" above and you only get to "vote" once. You can comment as much as you like, but only one bolded !vote per person. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"

"If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." Youre not "striking" anything. Thanks.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and sorry if you were offended by my striking through the word "delete". The problem is just that you shouldn't add a bolded "delete" at the start of your second and later comments. There is no problem with the comment itself; as you say, it is a discussion, not a vote. As I said at the AfD page, You are free to comment as much as you like, but please precede your second and later comments with something like Comment rather than repeating "delete". Among other reasons, if you cast more than one bolded "vote", it confuses the bot that archives these discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Honestly, I didnt know there was any other choices besides delete or keep. I also made editions that were lost when I hit save because I don't like the way my comment could be interpreted. So, sorry about that on my part. I was adding that on each re-list new points were made and I had added that my particular stance hadn't changed. Well Im glad you shared that. If I ever participate in a discussion like this and had previously added "delete" Ill add "comment". Thats when wikipedia can be really great, is when through discussion a person can learn things like even nuances. That was a cool experience doing this with you here, have a nice day. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. There's a lot to learn around here, isn't there? But it's worth sticking around and learning. Wikipedia editing can be an interesting hobby. If you have questions in the future, feel free to ask. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There definitely is. It is worth it. I will probably do just that. I really appreciate the sentiment. I already have one thing I would ask about someone who wrote something derogatory about a known gay musician, implying they hooked up with young people. I think it should be brought to an administrators attention because its completely like nothing Ive ever seen here since mid 2000s. Im not sure if this is the place though. So maybe I wouldn't bother you with it. Im not sure. Either way have a great day, and Thank you.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to tell me the name of the article, I'll take a look at it. Wikipedia has very firm policies on articles about living people, see WP:BLP. If you don't want to post the name of the article here for whatever reason, you can email it to me. Just click "email this user" on the Tools menu on the left. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thx for the speedy deletion of my user page

Pyb (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. What a beautiful page you have replaced it with! --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Restoring Catalyst Pharmaceuticals page

Does the recent coverage of Catalyst Pharmaceuticals http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/biz-monday/article27561916.html make it sufficiently notable for a page restoration? It includes patient and business analyst perspectives from a third-party source. Mastermindful (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mastermindful: That is exactly the kind of thing - significant coverage from an independent reliable source - that people found lacking at the Afd discussion. I can't guarantee that it will be considered ENOUGH coverage, but it's worth trying. I will restore the article as a draft in your userspace. That will give you leisure to cite and add the new source and any others you have. When you have a draft article ready, let me take a look at it. If it is significantly different/better than the deleted article, I will move it to articlespace and post a note on the talk page saying it is significantly different. If the article is put into articlespace without a prior review, it is likely to get tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is here: User:Mastermindful/Catalyst Pharmaceuticals I suggest you redo your reference citations into a more standard format before resubmitting the article. See Help:Referencing for beginners. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if you think the additional detail in the userspace version is significantly different from the deleted article. A lot of the controversy surrounding Catalyst Pharmaceuticals and their orphan drug product is similar to controversy surrounding BioMarin, but involves US policy and opinion rather than that of the UK. --Mastermindful (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, User:Mastermindful, it is different enough, and now has some independent reliable sources (including the Miami Herald and other Florida newspapers). Good work. I will move it to article space. You understand that this does not guarantee it will remain in the encyclopedia, but I think it has a good shot. The controversy section needs to be expanded, including this source [2] which was mentioned at the AfD discussion. If you don't care to add that, someone else probably will. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, the article is live, and I added a note to the talk page saying that it is different enough that it should not be speedy-deleted per WP:G4. If anyone tags it, call their attention to that note. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Power

Hi. I wanted to upload a page of one of my favourite journalists Jonathan Power but it is not possible and says the page has been recreated too many times. Could you restore this so I could work on a page? I have good references for it. thank you Greyhound90 (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 12:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Greyhound90, and thanks for your note. The page has been created and deleted four times, so we are going to need some assurance that the article is now acceptable, before it gets allowed into the main encyclopedia. What you should do is upload the page to your own userspace, using the title User:Greyhound90/Jonathan Power. While it is there you can work on it. When you think it is ready, ask me or another administrator to look at the page to see if it now meets Wikipedia standards. One of the concerns that led to previous deletion was that parts of the article were copy/pasted from some other source. That is not allowed here, per WP:Copy-paste, so be sure that the article is entirely in your own words. Other concerns are described here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Power. Requirements for a subject to have an article here can be found at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear MelanieN, Thank u for your observations. As u will have seen with the last submission only a summary has been submitted. It is correctly sourced. Nothing is copied/pasted from another source. I have done what you said and created a greyhound90/jonathan power page.

Just to clarify the integrity of the submission in the original version when there were 2 queries about 2 of his documentary films made for the BBC- "It's Ours Whatever They Say" and the Diplomatic Style of Andrew Young"- the following should be noted. It was suggested that Jenny Barraclough made these films and received the awards not Jonathan Power. The fact is at that time Jenny and Jonathan were working as a partnership. Jenny was the director and Jonathan was the reporter (and in the case of the first film, the producer.) The prize given at the Venice Film Festival was not the Silver Lion and Jonathan has never claimed it was. That prize is for cinema feature films. The prize for "It's Ours" was for documentary films category. The film was also chosen for the London Film Festival of that year, 1972. In the case of Venice Jenny Barraclough's name was on the award. In the case of the London Film Festival only Jonathan Power's name was credited. In order to verify this you must contact Jenny at Jenny.barraclough@gmail.com. Regards, Jenny Eklund. Greyhound90 (talk)

@Greyhound90: I have looked at your draft article. I'm sorry but it is not going to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here. The criteria can be found at WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and specifically WP:AUTHOR. Wikipedia requires that there be significant coverage ABOUT the person from independent third-party sources. Almost every reference in your article is to things written BY Power. That does not count toward notability; there must be notice taken of him by WP:independent WP:reliable sources. You don't list any such sources. And just now in a search I couldn't find anything in reliable sources about him, or about his books or other writing. Getting stuff published is not in itself a criterion of notability. Neither is interviewing important people, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Bottom line, articles about him have been deleted four times; this version would undoubtedly get deleted again. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

They are back

the two guys who cause disruptive editing at the Mujaddid Page are back. whenever you protect the page they just leave wikipedia and stop editing. once your protection expires they come back to disrupt. Can you please gold lock for a longer period this time until the talk page has been used to create content? this is getting really annoying that they both wont even listen to anyone on talkpage and then go straight for the main page edits when protection expires. RegardsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, MelanieN. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 10:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't recall whether or not I've sent you an invite before, so here you go. Check out the project! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. Not my thing. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigma Alpha Pi

Sorry if this is not the correct format. This is my first time doing on mobile. I just got a letter to join some society called Sigma alpha Pi at my University and I noticed you deleted the Wikipedia article on it. I am hoping up can direct me to an archive of it so I can read what the Wikipedia article said. 89.157.146.232 (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I prefer not to revive the article, because it has been created and deleted numerous times. However you can read what Wikipedians thought about the article, and the organization (whose actual name is The National Society of Leadership and Success), at this discussion. In addition, some of the links in that discussion might give you additional information. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sweere-arse

"MelanieN (talk | contribs) deleted page Sweere-arse (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/sweir)"

Can you please reverse this deletion please? It is not copyright infringement, since the text comes from a book printed in 1888, Charles MacKay's Dictionary of Lowland Scots. An online version of this can be found at -

https://archive.org/stream/dictionaryoflowl00mackrich/dictionaryoflowl00mackrich_djvu.txt

This was listed quite clearly in the reference section of the article which was deleted. The user Jbhunley has been going through a number of my articles trying to get them removed. I have been offline for some weeks partly because of his unwanted attentions.

It does not seem to have crossed anyone's mind that the DSL might have in fact been quoting an older source, which it does do on a regular basis.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I am traveling and don't have access to my tools. So I can't see the deleted article. I'll take a look on Monday and see what I can do. Sorry for the delay. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MacRùsgail, sorry for the delay. Thanks for the link to the book online. It is true I did not notice the publication date of 1888 when I deleted the article, and that was my error. If the book had been published in the United States, that would make its contents WP:Public domain. But the book was published in London and Edinburgh, and I don't know what the rules are in that case. I will ask Wikipedia's expert on copyright matters what to do. @Moonriddengirl: are you available for a consultation? The article is Sweere-arse. If this article was NOT eligible for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, please let me know - or better yet, just go ahead and restore it. (BTW I have my doubts if it qualifies for an article here, because of WP:DICDEF, but that's another issue and not subject to speedy.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MelanieN and MacRùsgail. I've restored the article, as the content was published in the 19th century. :) Wikipedia:PD notes that while there is one exception in the U.S. (and it's really obscure), content published anywhere in the world before 1923 is regarded as public domain. Current requirements at Wikipedia:Plagiarism call for acknowledgement of that copying, but those requirements were not in place in 2006 when the article was created. However, in order to conform, I've added an attribution template. I've also procedurally re-launched the AFD, since the original issue was never evaluated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

According to this, copyright expires 70 years after the author's death, so yes it appears to be public domain. Adam9007 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's actually way more complicated than that, Adam9007. :/ It is public domain, but the laws that make it so have evolved dramatically in the last century. Current laws may or may not apply to older content, and what is public domain in the UK may not be public domain in the US. And vice versa. (US law governs here, although individual editors are also subject to the laws of their own jurisdiction.) I recommend this fabulous, annually updated resource from Cornell University which goes a little bit into the complexity with what's PD in the US. Content can actually be under copyright in the US longer than in its original publication country, courtesy of the URAA. The thing that makes this case easy is "Date of publication < 1923", which on Wikipedia means public domain. Except when it doesn't. See footnote 1 of WP:PD. Anyway, publication in English prior to 1923, our policy presumption is PD. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: Thanks for the help - and the lesson in policy! I will remember this for next time. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

deletion

Have reference from a newspaper website. Could you reverse the deletion for deleted article Frank Page(cartoonist)18:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Paginator (talk) Squirrel Appreciation Day

Paginator (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Paginator

Hello, User:Paginator! Sorry for the delay in replying, I have been traveling. Unfortunately, another Rome Sentinel reference is not enough to restore the article about Frank Page, or about his cartoon, Bob the Squirrel. You can see the community's discussion about the cartoon here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob the Squirrel. That article was deleted because it did not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here, namely, coverage by WP:independent WP:reliable sources. The Frank Page article was deleted for the same reason. Those articles actually had references from the Rome Sentinel. But it was pointed out that the Rome Sentinel is not an independent source, because it publishes the cartoon, and also employs Frank Page.[3] (BTW that's Rome, New York, not Rome, Italy). Unless Page or his cartoon start to get more widespread and independent coverage, they are not going to qualify for an article here. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

User:MelanieN! Here are some more sources...

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/J2575-2011

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/Archive/-Comics-Sherpa-Is-Guide-to-Possible-Syndication

http://geek-news.mtv.com/2011/12/16/kleefeld-on-webcomics-41-frank-page-interview/

http://comicscoasttocoast.com/podcast/episode-152-the-frank-page-interview-2-years-later/

http://comicscoasttocoast.com/podcast/episode-79-the-frank-page-interview-part-2/

http://comicscoasttocoast.com/podcast/episode-63-the-frank-page-interview/

http://wkal1450.com/cartoonist-frank-page-bob-the-squirrel-says-the-things-that-i-wish-i-could-say/

http://interestingcool.com/?p=52

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54634/happy-squirrel-appreciation-day

http://comicbastards.com/comics/web-comic-of-the-week-bob-the-squirrel/

http://www.jasonloveslife.com/frank-page/

http://www.wktv.com/features/Local_cartoonist_seeks_volunteers_to_help_make_giant_snow_squirrel.html

http://www.andertoons.com/cartoon-blog/2004/08/frank_page_insi.html

http://www.coolmirc.com/a-squirrel-drawing-a-day-for-a-year/

Paginator (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Paginator

Well, that's an interesting collection of sources. Most of them are blogs and such, things that don't count toward notability, but I see a few sources that taken together might give you enough meat for an actual, referenced biography of Frank Page. They are:

• A decent mention at Editor and Publisher.
• Local TV coverage at WKTV - purely local (like the Rome Gazette) but it helps.
• MTV Geek News interview - this looks like the best source for biographical information.
• The Rome Arts Hall of Fame - not much but doesn't hurt.
• A passing mention at Mental Floss - not much but shows that a national magazine has at least heard of him.
• You can also use the Rome Sentinel material, and even his own web page, as a source of information, but they do not contribute to his notability.

Here's what I would suggest: Start an article from scratch, in your own userspace rather than in the main encyclopedia. Oh, good, I see you already have done this, at User:Paginator/Frank Page (cartoonist). Work on it there for a while. Take a look at some other articles, say Bill Amend or Scott Adams or Bill Watterson, to see how it should be formatted (lead paragraph, biographical information, etc.) Use the references to verify the information you put in; see WP:Referencing for beginners if you're not familiar with how to cite references. When you think you have it ready, ping me and I'll take a look and advise you whether to go ahead and move it to the encyclopedia. If I think it has a shot at being kept, I will put a note on the talk page of the article, so that it doesn't get immediately deleted again. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

YGM and a note!

Hello, MelanieN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Hi Melanie! Its been long since we talked last, how are you? I want to make an announcement but I can't figure out any other way but to drop a note on few intimate editor's talk page, including you! I appreciate if you can have few minutes to spend on reading this thread on my talk page. If you feel that I deserve a scholarship, I appreciate your endorsement on that thread. Please don't consider this an unusual spamming, I don't have any other way of announcing this. Thank you very much! Have a nice day! Jim Carter 12:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux vandalism and SPA IP edits

Hello. Could you please raise the level of protection so as to prevent these single purpose IPs from debasing the article? Whatever the current protection level, it is not working. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

@SPECIFICO: Thanks for your note. The article currently has pending changes protection. That means that edits by IPs or non-autoconfirmed users have to be approved or rejected by someone before they become part of the article. That protection actually seems to be working. I do see one or two recent IP edits that you objected to or reverted, but I don't see any outright vandalism by IPs. Those comments had been accepted by other editors who have the Pending Changes Reviewer right, so they weren't clearly vandalism. Maybe a content dispute? I don't see any attempt to discuss it at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your reply. These IP edits are almost exclusively from single purpose accounts whose mission is POV editing on this article. As often occurs on the WP articles of fringe bloggers and internet self-publishers, this WP article has repeatedly attracted tech-savvy fans whose mission is not related to the larger goals of the WP community. This article has a sad history of disruptive editing, in my opinion, and would benefit from PP. I think I understand your point about pending change reviewers but setting aside whether it's outright vandalism, the protection is not working, in my opinion. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be asking for indefinite or long-term semi-protection. But that is rare and is imposed only when all else has failed. Page semi-protection is generally only used for a short time and when vandalism is occurring frequently; it expires as soon as the protecting admin thinks is feasible. Semi-protection is specifically NOT supposed to be used to give the advantage to a confirmed editor in a content dispute with IPs. "Semi-protection should not be used ... to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." In this case, the disputed edits are not clearly vandalism and not all that frequent; they are occurring now and then over a long period of time. That's what pending changes protection was invented for. If the edits are actually vandalism, they will not get accepted. If they are accepted by PC reviewers, that suggests they are not overt vandalism. This looks like a dispute between you and the IPs, about whether or not to include the subject's opinion about global warming. Such disputes should be taken to the talk page. Start a section there, and explain why you think the material needs to be in the article. If some other people agree with you, then you have current consensus on your side, and you have other people besides yourself doing the reverting. If the other party persists after consensus has been established, there are ways to deal with that. Right now it is just your opinion against theirs. I see that you have been following this article for a long time, and in one recent edit summary you mentioned that there may be something somewhere in the archives about the same issue. Maybe you could copy a part of that earlier discussion to the current talk page, or at least repeat the main point and provide a link to the archive. I understand your frustration, but IMO a stronger type of protection is not called for. Of course, feel free to take your request to WP:RFPP. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi I think that if you take a closer look at the current and past editor behavior in this article, you'll see that the current level is not going to address the problem. We now have an IP edit-warring reviewer who declined the IP's edit. I have no bias against IPs, but these are single purpose accounts who are only editing what they appear to feel is unfavorable information concerning Mr. Molynuex. At any rate I don't mean to hassle you about this. I only came here because you were the one who responded to my request for PP and I'd hoped you would follow up. Under the circumstances, I'm not going to invest the time to repost information to the talk page and will most likely join the legion of editors and admins who abandoned this article in the course of past episodes. Thanks over and out. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, well, you have invested a lot of time talking to me about it. That time would be better spent documenting your position on the talk page - or asking again at RfPP to see if some other admin feels the situation warrants semi-protection. --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, posting on the article talk page would not be a better use of my time. I've already stated the relevant issues in my edit comments. As to your suggestion that my time would be better spent asking at RfPP, you're presenting a false dichotomy since nothing I've done here precludes that. I thought I'd made clear, by explaining why I came here again, that I did not continue the thread in order to challenge your decision to stand back but rather to provide what I had intended to be a gracious explanation as to why I bothered you here. Neither of us has any responsibility to rescue any single article from whatever dysfunctions may befall it. Instructing folks on how best to allocate their time, in the absence of real misbehavior is very unlikely to promote fruitful interaction. Again, intending to depart. Feel free to post the last word here, I promise not to return anytime soon. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Email

You received a couple of emails on Project WIN. --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• You have received another email. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Decals42 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)decals 42

Re: Institute for the Future deletion

Melanie, I believe it is also rude to delete the pages of 50 year old institutions that work with thousands of people every year. Wikipedia, for all extents and purposes, is a public resource, and yet the rules and requirements are increasingly inscrutable and inaccessible to all but the small contingent of people who follow them. No effort was made to help the Institute for the Future meet a requirement they do not understand. Does every single human in the world need to be a wikipedia expert in order for wikipedia to accurately reflect the world they live in? I would guess that very few institutions meet the notability requirement as described. What periodicals devote time specifically to talking about the existence of institutions? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decals42 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your note, User:Decals42. I understand your frustration. The institution is important to you and you want it to have a page here. But not every organization can have a page here, even if it is well established and does good work. Our criteria for an article about an organization are laid out here: WP:ORG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it does not make value judgments about who does good work and who does not, or who is "worthy" and who is not. We are a tertiary source, meaning that we base everything here on information from reliable secondary sources, like newspapers, magazines, books, etc. If those sources find the subject important enough to write about it in detail, then we have an article. If there is NOT significant coverage from independent reliable sources, then we do not have an article. I would be very happy to help recreate an article about the Institute of the Future, if the necessary sources existed.

So I just spent some time looking for sources. The best source I found was this which devotes a paragraph to the Institute. If I could find several other reliable-source references like that, actually giving some detail ABOUT the Institute, we could think about having an article. But all the others I found were passing mentions along the lines of "so-and-so works at the Institute for the Future" - in other words, not significant coverage about the Institute itself. My search was complicated by the fact that there is also an "Institute for the Future" at New York University, and an "Instititute for the Future of Work" in Switzerland.

But there's also some good news: In my searching I found lots of information about the Institute's director, Jane McGonigal. I was going to suggest you consider doing an article about here. But it turns out she already has one: Jane McGonigal. I suggest you add some more information about the Institute for the Future to that page. --MelanieN (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Decals42 (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)decals42 Hi Melanie, thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response. I believe the best place to look for mentions of the Institute for the Future is in books published by people who have been affiliated with it, like Jane McGonigal - though there are others who have their own pages, such as Olaf Helmer and Roy Amara. They both have active articles with now-dead links to the Institute, which suggests to me that the Institute would benefit from being a separate article that they could all link to. I've found some additional periodicals, in book form, that hopefully meet these requirement better:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ERNmAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Institute+for+the+Future%22+founded&dq=%22Institute+for+the+Future%22+founded&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMI8ujq3N_5xwIVy1mICh1-KQUU

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3041052/futurist-forum/predictions-about-the-last-decade-from-futurists-in-2005

https://books.google.com/books?id=Btt3HAAACAAJ&dq=%22Institute+for+the+Future%22+1968&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAGoVChMIxbTfj-D5xwIVxDOICh1BpAD3

Thanks.

Now you're talking! The first two books provide independent coverage about the institute and could be used to demonstrate notability. I suggest you create an article in draft form, using some of these sources you have found. Then check with me or with User:Kudpung, the administrator who deleted the article, to see if the new article demonstrates sufficient notability to be kept. If we think it is likely to be kept, we will move it to article space (the actual encyclopedia) for you. The ultimate decision about whether to keep the article will depend on community consensus.

I will "userfy" the article for you. That means I will put it into your private userspace, not part of the encyclopedia, where you can work on it at your leisure. You may not find the original article very useful, since it had no independent sources at all, but at least it will give you a format to start with. You should use the sources you have found to verify facts in the article. If you don't know how to format citations, help can be found here: WP:Referencing for beginners. Please remember that the best sources are INDEPENDENT sources - not written by the Institute, or by people associated with the Institute, but by outsiders. That appears to be the case with your first two books, as well as the Nature article I found. Institute-associated sources can be used to verify some facts, but independent sources are needed to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is here for you to work on: User:Decals42/Institute for the Future . (If the categories look funny, I have disabled them since things in userpages should not be listed in categories. They can be reactivated when the article is moved to article space.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Decals42 (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)decals 42 I've modified the existing article to include some of these (and other) references to third party periodicals and books that support the claims made in the article. If these contributions are appropriate, can you please assist me with next steps? Thank you for your help with this.

OK, good - this is a lot better. However, I notice that you didn't really USE the references - you simply added them to the text of the previous article, in some cases without any relationship between where you put them and what they say. References footnotes are supposed to support or confirm the information where they are placed. (You remember footnotes from school: you used a footnote to support something you just said.) But some of these seem to be almost randomly placed, just dropped into the article, even if they have nothing to do with the statement they are supposed to be supporting. Also, you didn't add any of the new information that the references contain; adding it would make the article stronger.

For example, the "Predictions about the decade" article does not say anything about what programs the Institute offers to its clients, so it shouldn't be used as a source for that information. Instead, to use that reference you could add a sentence saying that the Institute puts out a 10-year forecast for the future every year. The Coren article does not say anything about who the clients are, or about the shift in target audience from governments to businesses - so it should not be used as a source for that information. Use it for something it actually says. The Helmer book describes the Institute as "the first independent research organization devoted exclusively to futures research"; you might want to add that somewhere. In other words, USE the sources, don't just throw them into the article. One other thing: the Marina Gorbis reference is a dead link, you should fix that. Thanks for your work on this article, we are getting close to restoring it to the encyclopedia - after a few improvements. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Please add your signature to the END of your message, not to the beginning. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Braun for President Update

Hello MelanieN,

The BraunforPresident.US website has been published since September 8, and while I did provide a formal announcement of my campaign in a press release on September 14th, I have not yet received any published articles on my campaign. I have done several interviews that have been posted online, and one radio interview on WGST Talk Radio in Atlanta. I have also received an endorsement from engineering professor T. Nejat Veziroglu, the president of the International Association for Hydrogen Energy (iahe.org) on September 15th.

I have mentioned to 75.108 that Nejat should have his own Article on Wikipedia, given his 93-page resume [[4]], most of which are publications.

My press release campaign is continuing, and next week I will be meeting with the CNN and Fox news networks here in Atlanta in the hopes of getting the critical television news coverage that is needed to get invited into the first Democratic debate in Nevada on October 13, 2015. Please let me know if you have any other questions.Harry W Braun III (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on vg console system software articles

Hi Melanie, I saw that you protected the PS3 system software article. Would you be able to help enforce the consensus at the AfD to remove the change logs from the related articles (and protecting where you see fit)? (E.g., enforcing the consensus on edits such as this.) I participated in the AfD so I'd rather not be involved. – czar 17:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: Thanks for your note. I'd like to help, but this argument is way over my head. I am not familiar with the whole genre of video games, and I wouldn't know a changelog if it bit me. I know an edit war when I see one, which is why I imposed the protection, but the subject matter is beyond my areas of expertise. I understand your reluctance to act as an admin here, because of your involvement at the AfD, but maybe you could find an admin who is more familiar with this area than I am. And of course you are free to act as an editor. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus removed protection

Previously, there used to be sysop-move protection in that Wikipedia:Consensus page. I see that you had made a mistake with adding the wrong protection at one point, but now I notice that the move-protection is removed. Can you please re-add that sysop-move protection that you had accidentally removed? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Strictly Come Dancing

I find it quite rude how Strictly Come Dancing has been protected. Although I don't have an account I enjoy editing for shows and would appreciate if it was unlocked. If someone is creating an edit conflict, Block their account from editing. Simple — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.126.177 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you have made constructive edits to the article Strictly Come Dancing (series 13). However, multiple other unregistered users were adding unsourced material, and that was the reason for the protection. If you were to register an account, semi-protection would not be a problem for you. If you have your own reasons for not wanting to register an account, that is your privilege, but unfortunately this kind of situation will come up now and then. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Trent Zimmerman

Please reconsider the deletion of this bio. Given the comment in this yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald (below) I'm sure many people will be looking for information on this notable political figure.

"The current NSW Liberal Party president, Trent Zimmerman is the front runner to replace Mr Hockey in the seat of North Sydney, with the moderate faction claiming a strong hold on the numbers in local branches.

No date has been set for a byelection yet but insiders were not ruling out a factional battle over the preselection, with predictions the Right faction would resist Mr Zimmerman taking the plum seat.

Mr Zimmerman is a long time mover and shaker in the so called 'wet' faction of the Liberals both in state executive and behind the scenes. He has worked for Mr Hockey as a staffer and is currently a senior policy adviser at the lobby group, Tourism and Transport Forum (TTF). He is openly gay and is the current state president of the party."

14:49, 5 February 2015 Deor (talk | contribs) deleted page Trent Zimmerman (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Zimmerman) Castlemate (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Castlemate, but you're talking to the wrong person. The article was deleted by User:Deor and that is who you should be take this request to. As you know, the article was deleted by community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Zimmerman back in February. You say there is now an additional reference; that may or may not be enough to meet the standards for an article here, which are found at WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:BIO. In any case, it would be up to Deor whether to restore the article, userfy it (that means put it into your private user space where you can improve it), or leave it deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Michel Tronchay

Hi, I was wondering if you would reconsider this PROD deletion go to AfD instead. The reason is the French version of the article is pretty long and has sources[5], it's a historic figure from the 17th century who seems to have a fair number of refs available on Google Books and likely elsewhere. I don't know what the original article looked like but it may just be oversight no one bothered to look for sources. -- GreenC 16:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: I'll be glad to restore it and AfD it - or userfy it to you if you prefer. The original article was an unsourced stub, created in 2012. Before deleting I did a quick search myself; I found quite a few mentions, all in French, but offhand nothing looked to me like SIGNIFICANT coverage. I also noticed that there is a sizable article at fr.wiki. Would you like a chance to work on it yourself, or would you rather I send it it to AfD where others can search for sources? --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a stub. There are many other sources on Google Books, but they are snipit view in French. They can be brought up in AfD as evidence of notability, but can't incorporate into the article without knowing exactly what they say. If you prefer to AfD it I understand but hope this is sufficient to hold it until someone with better resources and French speaker works on it. There's no doubt he was an important French writer of the 17th century. -- GreenC 00:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Good work. It's now a REFERENCED stub and looks good to me. I see no need to AfD it, and I will put an old-prod notice on the talk page so that nobody tries to prod it a second time. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed that the article is an orphan. So I was going to put a link at Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont. But Tronchay isn't mentioned there, and I didn't have a source, and I wasn't quite sure about the relationship between them. Were Tillemont's writings compiled and published posthumously by Tronchay? --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea added the backlink. -- GreenC 01:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I probably have a weird sense of humor, but this phrase - publication of both works was not completed until after his death by his secretary Michel Tronchay - struck me as funny in a dark sort of way. Death by his secretary? I reworded it, hope you don't mind. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it could be read that way! -- GreenC 14:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Gameday Locations Delete Decision

MelanieN,

Can you please review your decision to delete the list of ESPN College Gameday locations article? It was an extremely useful archive that isn't replicated anywhere else on the Internet -- not just for sportswriters, but for fans as well. It's a lot of information. Even if we can just have it back to re-create it on the main page for ESPN Gameday, that would be a huge benefit. Losing it in the middle of the season, for reasons that don't make any sense (I read the entire debate), isn't good for anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.118.194 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locations of College GameDay (football) was pretty clear. People cited WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT as well as noting that the article was mostly unsourced. You are welcome to take it to deletion review if you wish. However, I should warn you that "it's useful" is an example of an "argument to avoid in deletion discussions", and "it's not replicated anywhere else on the Internet" is another way of saying "unsourced". But feel free to take it to DRV. I will not argue against restoration, and if the consensus at DRV is to put the information into the College GameDay main article, I will restore the information to whoever is going to put it there. (Somebody seems to have started trying to do something like that as we speak.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Frank Page (cartoonist) Deletion

Well, as someone who has watched Frank Page work on 'Bob the Squirrel' for years and then to find that his page was removed for an elitist motive by someone who apparently feels that independent artists aren't important... I can tell you I'll never donate to Wikipedia again.

If this is what my money goes to then forget it. I thought this was supposed to be a record of our world. Not the personal whim of arbitrary editors who have some kind of personal vendetta or maybe just a massive indifference towards people who create art for the rest of us... Either way. Thanks for relieving me of spending another dime on Wikipedia... I thought it was supposed to be bigger than personal opinions. Reverend randomblink - Ask and you shall believe. (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Randomblink: Thanks for your note. As someone who cares about this subject, you are in luck! As you can see higher up on this page, another Frank Page fan set up a user page to try to recreate the article and resubmit it. The draft is at User:Paginator/Frank Page (cartoonist). That user never did anything further with it, but you could. All you need to do is expand that draft and add references, so that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here. The criteria are not arbitrary or somebody's personal whim. They are spelled out clearly at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The person needs to have been significantly written about or reported on by independent reliable sources. Note that the Rome Sentinel does not count as an independent source, since it employs Frank Page and publishes his cartoon. If you can find significant coverage about him from other sources, and add it to the article, it might become eligible to put back into the encyclopedia. Good luck! --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Melanie. The Rome Sentinel does not employ Frank Page to publish Bob the Squirrel. He is hired as a graphic designer and webmaster. It runs Bob the Squirrel but that is because it is a compelling, interesting, entertaining read that is better than much of the dreck Syndicates offer us. You also should read some of his graphic novels that are penetrating analyses that have been used in K-12 classrooms to relate to students.

Your mistake is your lens. You see Wikipedia as a resource for the world. I see it as a resource for our community.

BTW, can we at least get the content from the deleted page to preserve it for posterity? [In the interest of truth in advertising, I am the fifth generation of my family to publish the Rome Sentinel, but I am also author of Individuals, Journalism, and Society.] sbw (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Sbwaters. Regarding Your mistake is your lens. You see Wikipedia as a resource for the world. I see it as a resource for our community. Actually that is your mistake. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia - that is, a resource for the world. As such it has to have criteria for what is included here; we can't include everything there is to say about every community. I linked to the inclusion criteria above, in my response to Randomblink. Those criteria apply to everything and everyone, including Frank Page: if you can find significant coverage about him in other publications, and add it to the draft article, it might be restored. As for the content of the article about Frank Page, it was identical to the draft at User:Paginator/Frank Page (cartoonist). --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Cute subject

Holla, I'm back! With a new short article on an exceedingly cute subject, Bei Bei, a bit of copyediting will be of much profit. Could you please copyedit? And if possible we can try to make a DYK of it. Cheers, Jim Carter 12:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hooray, you are back! Very good news. I'm away from my computer right now but I'll take a look Monday or Tuesday. Off hand I don't see much need for copy editing, you have done a very good job. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

P. S. have you checked the length? Does it have enough text for DYK? I don't have the page size tool on my phone. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Checked, it's 1,536 words chars. It's enough if the rules haven't changed. What you say? Jim Carter 03:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

P. S. I have another article which needs your help, Wilhelm Boden, possible DYK? Cheers, Jim Carter 16:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jim Carter: OK, I made a few changes and additions to the article, and will start to work on a DYK. Meanwhile, I suggest you add Bei Bei to the article List of giant pandas - both as his own entry and in the entry for his mother. --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done You can find it here; Template:Did you know nominations/Bei Bei. I went with a cutesy-mysterious hook, hope you don't mind. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Added to the list. Jim Carter 03:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

IP-hopping troll appears to be name dropping

Hi MelanieN; One of the IP-hopping trolls at a Maryland University (its Johns Hopkins) appears to be name dropping on your account name to cover-up or justify recent IP-hopping and trolling. There have been multiple blocks and warnings already but none seem to be working so far (who knew there were so many disgruntled students at that university.) I was going to request a range block for 30-days (multiple accounts in the range of this User talk:192.12.13.14), but since your name is the one that the IP-troll is dropping for everyone to see, then I thought you would like to look at it first. MusicAngels (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I will reply on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

United States Congress

Republicans should go first because there's more of 'em. No, Democrats should go first because we should do it alphabetically. No, Republicans should go first because we should do it in reverse alphabetical order (never fun to have a last name that is at the end of the alphabet in school). No, Democrats should go first because we need to respect the rights of minorities. Solomonic solution: Republicans go first six months out of the year, and Democrats the other six months. A party bot can enforce this. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: LOL! In this case I thought it was best to stick with "the way we've always done it." But I like your suggestions. We should do all of them. At the same time. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Northey page deletion

Greetings, I am looking to find out why the Jessica Northey page was deleted and how I can create it so it will not be marked for deletion. Ccleeton (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ccleeton: Thanks for your note. The article was deleted by community consensus, for the reasons given here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Northey (2nd nomination). This was actually the fourth time the page was deleted; see the history here. I just took a look at the recently deleted page, and there is really nothing there that meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, which can be found at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. To be accepted for an article here, the subject must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I don't see anything like that in the deleted article. There is a list of "accolades," but none of them are significant prizes as Wikipedia defines it. As someone suggested at the AfD discussion, maybe it's just too soon in her career for her to have a page.

In other words it's not something that could be fixed by writing it differently; the subject herself does not qualify no matter how the article is written. If she gains more recognition later, maybe doing more than just curating a hashtag and being a social media presence, you could ask about creating another draft at that time. If you do anything like that, be sure to do it in draft space or user space. Don't just go ahead and create an article in the main encyclopedia, because it would quickly get deleted, per WP:G4 - and the title would probably get locked so that no one could create any more articles about her. Before putting an article back into the encyclopedia, you should check with me or some other administrator, to see if the article is different enough to that it won't get speedy-deleted per G4. Sorry I couldn't be more encouraging. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a newbie

Hi MelanieN, my name is IntelligenceAgent, call me IntelAgent for short. I am not agent, but a new Wikipedia user. I was wondering if you as an administrator had any advice for me? I use to edit Wikipedia long long ago but am now joining again. I am glad to be able to assist with any information that needs improvement. I hope I can be some value to the project. I forget, is there a welcome page for new users? Thanks. IntelligenceAgent (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IntelligenceAgent, and welcome back. Yes, the place you are looking for is the WP:Teahouse. There are lots of friendly people there, ready to welcome you and answer your questions and point you toward articles that need improvement in areas that interest you. Thanks for wanting to help at Wikipedia! --MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Restoration

Hello Melanie! Thank you for taking the time to respond to my query. Yes, it is an article about me, though it was actually written by a close relative with good intentions (which is why I'd like to see it reinstated). As regards my "importance," I can certainly supply links to a few independent interviews and a newspaper article or two, among other things. (Where would it be appropriate to post these? On this page?) I've been working in the industry for 25 years, but have only recently been remarked upon as a filmmaker, though of course I plan on adding to my credits in years to come. Thanks for your assistance! Phasmos (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Neo-McCarthyism?

I agree with your revert, of course, it's unsourced and POV, but had wondered where the edit came from. I looked up the Tapper interview. It's interesting, but it would take quite a bit of a synthesis to explain it, which is not allowable. McCarthy clearly is saying the purpose of the Select Committee is to gain information to more effectively move public opinon, rather than to discover facts and to proceed to a judgment, and he does not adequately respond to Tapper's "exercise in futility" question: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1509/29/cg.01.html Activist (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What I find interesting, and the article doesn't make it clear (and probably couldn't without WP:UNDUE weight), is that he VOLUNTEERED this comment in response to a general question about what the Republicans had accomplished with their majority. It wasn't a gotcha question or anything, he just came out with it. It may yet have more important consequences, we'll see. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A matter you dealt with earlier

@MelanieN: You recently responded to a complaint by MusicAngels about sockpuppetry and IP-hopping concerning the IP user 192.12.13.14. MusicAngels also complained about this IP user to User:EdJohnston. MusicAngels has now made the same complaint to a third admin: [6], but with a difference: this time MusicAngels has added a named user account (Poetic1920) to the complaint. I am not Poetic1920. I am someone who been alarmed for a long time by MusicAngels' edits. - 50.74.107.148 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I posted a comment at SilkTork's talk page.

Sakit Mammadov page

Hi Melanie,The page I created Sakit Mammadov was deleted because of some unworking links.I need your permition to open this page again.I will remove unworking links and change them new ones. Your sincelery Rashad Aghayev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resadagha (talk • contribs) 15:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Resadagha: I am reluctant to unlock this page. You have created it three times and it has been deleted three times - most recently via a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakit Mammadov. In a previous post to a previous deleting administrator, you said "I want to create it again because he is gonna win award and wiki page is needed for this awar.He personally asked me to create page.Please help me." [7] Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. It does not exist to promote people's careers - only to document them, and only if they meet our inclusion criteria such as WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Here is what I suggest: show me, here at my talk page, what links you plan to add to the article. And I will decide if those links are enough to overcome the previous problems with the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

These are some of them If you want I can add new ones.

http://www.azernews.az/culture/62208.html https://www.saatchiart.com/sakitmammadov http://www.today.az/view.php?id=102360 http://www.anthemculture.com/2015/06/03/azerbaijani-artist-awarded-prestigious-malta-award/ http://www.gallerynawei.com/sakit-mammadov/