User talk:Melonkelon

Congratulations from STiki!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Melonkelon! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Faizan 05:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	11 November 2011 Ameya Narvekar 16:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Melonkelon! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 09:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rebecca Simonsson

Allen3 ^talk 10:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Kitty Jutbring

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

International Airport

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Congratulations, International airport, an article you helped in prove as an active contributor amongst the team over at the wikiproject Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement has now been recognized with Good Article status here on Wikipedia. Your contributions among the the TAFI team and Wikipedia as a whole are appreciated. David Condrey log talk 08:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Rollback and Pending changes reviewer

Hello Melonkelon. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Pending changes reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing!
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Melonkelon (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about your edit "removing some external links that are already used as references in the article, some of these external links could also be incorporated into the body"

I am a novice here, so if there's some rule on your side on this, I concede. But I think redundancy is no strong argument against the external links I provided in that section. I see a parallel with the Sources section, and with the bibliography in a book: entries there are not deleted even though they are already used as references within the article. It's very convenient to researchers to have all the items that are referenced gathered together at the end of an article. Ditto with external links, no? If this article had a really full-bodied collection of external links--say 100--it would become much more frequently accessed than it is now, and much more valuable. I'm not aware of a similar neutral resource on the net. (If there is, it should be linked to!) I forgot to mention that the article in question is "Patterson-Gimlin film". RogerKni (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi RogerKni, I understand where you are coming from, but it is discouraged to include too many. I suggest you take a look at WP:External links and WP:Further reading for more information. Including 100 links would be too excessive. To quote WP:LINKFARM, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Melonkelon (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Melonkelon. I assumed you were following WP's guidelines in making those deletions. So, thanks for the quote. I'll re-post the last phrase: WP:LINKFARM, ". . .; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Upon reading that, I retract my statement that I would concede my protest if such a rule existed.

1. I dispute that a list of 100 entries would "dwarf" the "Patterson-Gimlin film" entry, which I just printed out. It consists of 21.5 pages, of which the current External link's 14 items occupy .75 of a page. I compute from that that 100 external links would occupy roughly 5.33 pages and expand the entire P-G film article to 26.83 pages. In that event, the External links portion would amount to 20% of the total, leaving the main article undwarfed. (Also, because External links appear after the article, they don't really overshadow (=dwarf) the article itself--they're just an ignorable appendage, like other end-matter. Only on a printed page in an encyclopedia would this dwarfing effect be noticeable.)

2. I dispute that a large number of External links would detract from the "purpose" of Wikipedia. I've often read statements, when Wikipedia's content is being discussed and criticized online, that defend WP by saying that its main purpose is as a jumping-off point from which to launch one's own research, because of its many excellent source references and links. This implies that its articles are, for those users, a secondary or even negative factor. For those users, the more External links, the better.

So what IS the purpose of Wikipedia? If it is only to be an encyclopedia, and if printed encyclopedias are its model, then a large number of Sources and Links would not be "fitting." That's because most readers of an encyclopedia are not looking to check primary sources themselves. They want all that material pre-digested for them, by experts. (And, anyway, they have no way to click on a link.) But, by eschewing expert-oversight, WP ought to compensate for possible amateur bias and/or incompleteness in its articles, particularly on contentious topics with lots of ins-and-outs like the P-G film, by providing ready access to "primary sources."

Furthermore, even if WP were curated by impartial and fully knowledgeable experts, ready access to primary (and even secondary) sources would still be a Good Thing, because it would empower interested readers to dig deeper into the subject, without flailing around online doing unguided Google searches. With unlimited free space online, WP can surpass the limited help that space-restricted print encyclopedias could provide.

In the case of the P-G film, there are lots of primary sources that are only available online, or only conveniently and inexpensively online. These include newspaper and magazine stories about key events in the PGF saga, interviews of key participants and claimants, studies by scientists and others, photos, maps, videos, and even secondary material like notable amateur analyses, pro and con. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of these. Familiarity with this material is a great help if one wants to enter the lists of online discussion and debate without looking foolish, or without coming off bested by an opponent. The process of acquiring this familiarity can take about five years in the normal, haphazard course of events, with lots of ego-bruising dues-paying along the way. A substantial collection of consolidated External links would allow novices to get up to speed within months, resulting in a more elevated tone in online exchanges. (E.g., fewer "You N00b!"-type accusations and more "see-this-link" ripostes.) It would also help dispel ignorance and misconceptions that are common even among longtime topic-buffs.

3. A more subtle benefit of WP's adopting a latitudinarian stance on long External links collections has just occurred to me. It applies especially to contentious topics: They will provide an outlet for zealots to make their point without deranging the neutrality and balance of the main article. (Especially if, along with the link, they are allowed to insert a brief mention of what the link supposedly proves or supports, as long as strong assertions are disallowed.) This ought to cut down considerably on the number of edit wars and on the amount of cleanup work that WP's volunteer monitors like you have to do. At present, persons who are one-sided but who think they have the Key to the subject are tempted to "stick their oar in" at the wrong place: the main article.

So let's someone get Wales to do an organizational backflip!  ;-) RogerKni (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You sound very passionate about this. If you really want to voice your opinion, you could discuss it at WP:Help desk, WP:Village pump (miscellaneous) and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. You could also try a WP:Request for comment. Melonkelon (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ASTRA Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Six Feet Under (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Defense of my Boldfacing

You wrote, "removed bold, could you please explain your use of bold?"

I used boldfacing for two purposes: 1) As "row headings." These are the first words at the start of items in a list format, usually ending in a period; for instance the names of people who are the subject of the paragraph. Boldfacing is common in publishing for row headings. It's user friendly for the same reason that the boldfacing of standalone headings is helpful. It helps the reader grasp the outline of the material, and helps the re-reader navigate it more easily.

2) As paragraph-topic indicators. For instance, in the first paragraph under "The Encounter," I boldfaced "inconsistencies," which was the paragraph's topic. These indicators are not commonly used, but ought be, for the same reason that row headings are boldfaced. They provide readers with visual "handholds" in a blank wall of normal text.

Wikipedia's "Manual of Style/Text formatting" neither recommends nor proscribes boldfacing for row headings. It seems unaware of their common use. It ought to be revised to allow them in a list format (after an *). I've just posted the row-heading suggestion on the Village Pump: Policy page. RogerKni (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Stalker here. Erm, I wouldn't recommend that. Not sure what the rule is or if there is a rule -- there's a lot of rules here and its hard to keep track of them, plus a few are silly -- but it's highly idiosyncratic. It's not the kind of use of bolding you'd generally see in any kind of serious writing. Think of it like this: suppose you had recast the article into ryhming poetry. There's probably not a rule against that per se, but the de facto is to more or less follow the format of other articles. Same with bolding -- you won't see that kind of bolding in other articles.

On the merits, I don't like the bolding, no. It's disruptive rather than informative, IMO. I'm not certain of that and its just my opinion, but I think there's a reason you won't see bolding like that in Britannica or, basically, anywhere else, except maybe US News and World Report... they used to do that for their news-in-brief roundups, back in the day....

It's arguable on the margins. "The film-makers were Roger Patterson..." could possibly be OK, maybe, I suppose, possibly (I wouldn't do it); "The filmsite is roughly 38 miles south of Oregon..." is highly idiosyncratic, and I wouldn't think it would stand an RfC or anything like that.

It's frustrating sometimes. I like to write "In June of 1941, Germany invaded..." but I'm not permitted to; by rule, it must be "In June, 1941, Germany invaded...". I think it's silly to even have a rule about that, and I think the rule is wrong. It's annoying when you can't write as you'd like. However, we're given fair leeway here IMO. Stuff like this you just have to learn to go along with, I guess.

Hope this is helpful, thanks for your contributions, contact me any further questions, and happy Wiki'ing! Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

RogerKni. Per MOS:BOLD, generally the only times bold is used is for article title terms (Patterson–Gimlin film, Patterson film, PGF), automatically applied bold (headings, table headers), and certain redirects to the article (Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin). I agree with Herostratus, I don't like the bolding. I don't think it adds anything to the article, but accept your view. Melonkelon (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Request to undo your deletion of "* Bigfoot in popular culture"

It was already there before I expanded it. It links to a really long page on the Bigfoot topic. It was appropriate where it was.RogerKni (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@RogerKni: Bigfoot in popular culture is already linked in the {{main}} template in the popular culture section, so it doesn't need to be linked in see also. Per WP:SEEALSO, "the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Please explain your reasoning. Melonkelon (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Melonkelon. OK, I concede.

Take a look

..at the article about Ester Claesson. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And Saga Becker :).--BabbaQ (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at Anna Bråkenhielm, Lo Kauppi and Micael Bindefeld. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it you can take a look at the article Gustav Laabs that I just created. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lo Kauppi

Gatoclass (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

TAFI

If you want to you can please review my noms at TAFI. I need some more input. Thanks. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Melonkelon. Thanks for your edit here. I don't know if you noticed that the SPA also created (er I should say copy/pasted) the article Bhurgri. I don't know if there is any merit to the spelling change but IMO if there is than it should be done via a page move. I don't know if they will continue try and make those changes so I wanted to let you know what I had found so you can keep an eye on things. Thanks for your time and have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 21:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD thanks for your message. I did notice the two articles, but didn't know whether they were the same or not. I might leave a message on their talk page. Melonkelon (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I hope that they will respond in a positive manner. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Bråkenhielm

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Saga Becker

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

it want me

mr melonkelon it wasn't me I aint vandilise I just look up funny stuff :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.69.131 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

why did you take down my edit on Anerican Hearts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B016:F6DB:F835:A3AC:ACA4:53DC (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

why you take down my edit on chamacoco it was relevant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.162.133 (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lamar Dr. Phone Call Timing

I can assure you (and provide multiple references as to the fact) that that phone call was made at 08:24 in the morning. Page 97 of The Man with the Candy is one reference. The body text of the article indicates their going to Corll's home on the evening of Aug. 7 and awaking the next morning to be attacked. Also harked towards is 8 bodies being found on Aug. 8 when, following initial interviews with Henley, the police drove to Silver Bell Rd. and began excavating the boat stall. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Kieronoldham You should probably add those references. Do you have access to all of the books/magazines you have cited? Melonkelon (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course I do: page 15 of Harvest of Horror and page 2 of Mass Murder in Houston (to cite the books alone) mention this. I have always been mindful of the length of the article which is why I was never too exhaustive in adding references (although I must have placed in excess of 100 on there over the years). I've always been fascinated with this case. Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice to have your appreciation for my recent edits to Beaumont children disappearance. Have a good day, Manytexts (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Manytexts: it was a fairly minor change but something I had not picked up on before, even though I've read through that article numerous times. It definitely made a difference. Melonkelon (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace

If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

TAFI

If you want to, take a look at the article about Marie Serneholt which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Beaumont children disappearance 50th anniversary

I've noticed that the article contains some informal and conversational language (".. from a community that is still sensitive to their pain" would *not* be in a Britannica article). Can you deal with this?

cool

hey, I don't know, or care to know about all the ins and outs of wikipedia and your rules, etc. however, I do know that that extra logo in the Iowa Hawkeyes article is a bogus, unofficial logo. it never was a logo ... just look at it, it's a sloppy home-made version that should never have disgraced the pages of wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:173.29.87.28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.87.28 (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it. The reason why I undid your edit was because you changed the caption to "unauthorized logo hand-drawn by some moron". You should have just removed it and stated that it is an unofficial version in your edit summary. Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Mayday episode info

Hi -- first of all, thank you for contacting me about this! That's good WP-style :)

My argument isn't that one shouldn't refer to these programs at all, it's that they do not warrant an entire section on every single air accident article in Wikipedia (you'll see that this is pretty widespread, it's as though an air accident junkie saw all the episodes of Mayday and decided to add a section to every single article). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and dramatisations are not, strictly speaking, documentary in nature; they allow for considerable subjectivity. Many people become aware of these accidents in the first place because they "saw it on TV" and I'm concerned that younger people in particular will confuse watching something on TV with doing real research. Going to the Wikipedia article after having seen something about a subject on television is a common impulse, and finding a reference to a television program you just watched implies a confirmation of the validity of that program. I think that's a problem and it harms the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

To those who say "yes, but it has something to do with the accident", my response is that we don't put every piece of information that can be connected with a subject in the article for that subject; remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a catalog.

For nearly all of these accidents, the complete accident investigation report is freely available; these are prepared with considerable scientific rigour, and qualify as a high-quality source. Citing a TV program when referring to a specific fact or to an interview about the accident is also ok, you'll note I haven't removed those.

So my arguments are, in summary:

• As a single source of information about an accident, they don't warrant an entire section or paragraph, nor even a stand-alone sentence in the article; articles should be substantiated with as many different sources as possible without giving one particular source deliberate prominence, which would be POV.
• They contain dramatisations, which already makes them questionable sources. Moreover, access to the source is limited to those who live in regions where the programs are broadcast and who have cable or satellite television, making verifiability a problem. While sources that are not universally accessible are cited elsewhere in Wikipedia, we set a high standard for those sources, and these programs don't meet that standard.
• They are based largely on sources which are very often already cited elsewhere in the article. This is what makes programs like these appealing to producers: they use information in the public domain and are incredibly cheap to make.
• The entries are vaguely spammy in nature. Discovery Channel does not need our help advertising.
• When in doubt, we should leave it out.

I hope that makes some sense. I want Wikipedia to be of the highest quality that we can make it, and stuff like this just makes it seem like a blog. --Rhombus (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Henrik Mustonen

hey, please reverse Henrik Mustonen edits. You are wrong. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.30.171 (talk • contribs)

It seems like clear vandalism to me. Melonkelon (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiLove

Hello Melonkelon, SecretName101 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

SecretName101 (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC) SecretName101 (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Location Location Location Australia

The article Location Location Location Australia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence for notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTEMARKS

Please indicate to me exactly which part of MOS:QUOTEMARKS supports your edit to the Maggie Kirkpatrick article. I cannot see anything which does this. Yahboo (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yahboo: "An article title may include quotation marks, and these should be in bold just like the rest of the title when it appears at the start of the lead (from "A" Is for Alibi: "A" Is for Alibi is the first novel ...).

When a title is shown altered in the lead, any added quotation marks should not be in bold (from Jabberwocky: "Jabberwocky" is a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll ...; from Bill Clinton: William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton ... is an American politician.)." Melonkelon (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Norman Afzal Simons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IOL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martha Stewart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protction

Considering the high amount of vandalism on your talk page, I'd recommend requesting an admin to give it semi-protection. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Disappearance of William Tyrrell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kidnapped (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Doris Day marriages

Thanks for your support over her last/latest marriage. I often seem to find myself at odds with that particular contributor rms125a, as though he's keeping on my tail. Don't know whether he's keeping on yours. Valetude (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Ningali Lawford) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ningali Lawford, Melonkelon!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks great. Just added an extra source and an IMDB link - hope that's OK.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of People Like Us, a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 12:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

I am glad someone finally started an Asha Degree article ... were you moved by the recent anniversary? Last year being the 15th anniversary, I have since kicked myself for not having done one. It is probably one of the most frequently-discussed missing-person cases online (see this Reddit thread) that doesn't have a Disappeared episode devoted to it (I think the ID producers limit the show to adults), probably because of that "secret journey" angle, a la Maura Murray and Stephen Koecher ... why did they travel to those places before disappearing? It's unusual enough in the case of some 20-ish adults, but downright strange for a kid.

We can also now consider the "North Carolina Early 2000 trilogy" of notable missing-person cases to have articles. I found it a strange coincidence in retrospect that three perplexing cases (Zebb Quinn, Asha, and Leah Roberts, the case which I did write about for its 15th anniversary, an article which drew the second-greatest amount of hits for any DYK hook of mine) all came out of one state, one per month, at the beginning of that year. And all three with a headscratcher of a clue (the lips drawn on Quinn's car and the dog in it, Leah's overturned car later found to be tampered with, and Asha's bizarre walk along the road in such adverse conditions in the wee hours).

Are you planning to do more work on it? It seems a little thin compared to what else I think is out there ... the woman who writes this blog about the case seems to have found some news stories with interesting information that we might be able to include). I see you got in some national sources so we can establish notability. If it's OK with you, I'll grab a picture of her and set up an infobox. And maybe some more information. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: creating it close to the anniversary was just a coincidence, but I did in fact see it talked about on /r/UnresolvedMysteries, which I often read. I think I started creating the article the day of or the day after I read it. It would definitely be nice to expand it, but I'm not sure what else to write. More about Asha's behaviour and personality could be mentioned, like her being afraid of dogs, shy, stuff like that, so it was out of character for her to disappear in the middle of the night during a storm. The case was also shown on The Montel Williams Show (and an interview with her parents), Oprah and America's Most Wanted, so that could also be mentioned. I've had a glance at the blog and saw the author posting on Reddit, but I haven't really bothered to read it in depth. There was a recent article in the Shelby Star about the blog as well, with a response from Asha's mother.

I wasn't initially concerned with notability when I created it, but then I saw that the article had been deleted a long time ago, so I was questioning it a little. But, with the coverage on those shows, as well as enduring coverage in both local and national publications, I think it should be fine. Do you know any other sources that could be added? According to this old discussion, "her disappearance was cited in 2003 in debate in the U.S. House of Representatives as reason to support H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act."[1] I haven't looked at it, but it could be mentioned. I'm happy you are also interested in the case, as well as other cases. Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I always try to write a background section, something of a biography, at least explaining what issues were or might have been (per RS, of course) in play at the time. In Asha's case this means we mention the basketball loss that she fouled out of and the book she had been reading in class. And how much her parents worked to keep her sheltered (they didn't even have a computer in the house.

While I find these unsolved-mysteries stories intriguing, and back in the late 2000s created Sneha Anne Philip, the first one on my watchlist that falls into that category, it's only been more recently that I've made that a regular thing, after a read a Slate roundup of pieces on the subject from longform.org. I created Disappearance of Rebecca Coriam for the first anniversary of that case based on that; it is still my all-time DYK hits champ, and indeed got enough hits to still be on the all-time list at WP:DYKSTATS. Over the last year I began looking for notable cases that could be tied to significant anniversaries (my rule: >5, sometimes >10 if it was a very big one; after that only multiples of five. Anniversary articles that follow those rules (not just these types of stories; I have done it for cultural/sports things like the Announcerless Game in American football and "A Limo For A Lame-O", an Al Franken commentary on Saturday Night Live that had far-reaching effects on the show's next season.) generally get a lot of attention from DYK readers. This sort of limitation means I'm not writing these articles all the time; in time periods when I have (late last summer, when I wrote three of them (Disappearance of Ben McDaniel, Shao Tong murder case and Disappearance of Atsumi Yoshikubo) almost back to back, for instance) I find as other people have that it gets emotionally stressful and starts leaking into your everyday life—you become convinced that almost every random person you see in public somewhere is either going to disappear, be murdered or die mysteriously shortly afterwards, and you'll be that all-important Last Person To See Them (Alive). And even before it happens you're already wishing you weren't. On top of that, you go into near-panic if someone in your family goes somewhere and doesn't come back within an expected timeframe without letting you know. So I find it refreshing to take a break and work on the sorts of articles I've been doing for almost as long as I've been on Wikipedia that do not have these effects.

Whew. As a result, yes, I've been checking into the Unresolved Mysteries subreddit a lot too myself ... threads there often come up near the top of Google searches when I research the cases, especially those we don't have articles on yet. Sometimes I find links to sources there I didn't know about, and as a whole the quality of discussion there is way better than websleuths (although those people also find some useful sources, too). And they link to us a lot when we have articles ... I was really flattered by the Atsumi Yoshikubo thread, which pretty much endorsed the obvious conclusion and added some interesting observations about suicide in Japanese culture. I have actually thought about setting up a Reddit account for myself to post about some interesting cases that don't make our notability standards.

I think it's important for Wikipedia to have the best articles about these cases we can write, when we can ... we can go into greater depth than Meaghan can at the Charley Project, and we have to provide reliable sources that back up our claims (Not that Meaghan doesn't, but she just lists them generally at the end of her pages, just like we used to do).

I'll look at what you've cited, and the links you posted above.

I'd love for that article, also, to have a picture of the billboard along NC 18 where she was last seen darting into the woods. I'm guessing you don't live nearby? I'll put a {{reqphoto}} on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Unfortunately, I don't live in the U.S, and I can't find any pics on Flickr of either the highway or the sign. You have made some great improvements to the article. Could you clarify why you removed the mention of them finding her hair bow, pencil and marker in the shed? I can't see anything about it in your edit summaries, and pretty sure they actually did find those items based on news reports, unless I've missed something. Also, you have added that the book bag was in two plastic bags, but the ref next to it doesn't mention that. I have only seen that claim included on the Charley Project page and other forums online, but not in an actual news article that I could find. Melonkelon (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I did see the Commonwealth spelling in your post but, since you didn't say where you're located and your user page didn't clear that up, I thought you might be currently living in the Carolinas even if you were born and raised elsewhere. Hopefully someone down there can oblige us ... maybe I'll ask on the project talk page.

You're welcome. I had removed the details about what was found in the shed since, at the time, I wasn't sure that was an exhaustive list and I didn't think we'd be expanding this so much (story of my life here). Now I'll put it back. And ... was it one plastic bag, at least? I'll take it out for now ... I bet it was in one of the older articles I've found evidence of that are simply no longer online in any way to find. Perhaps I'll email Meghan or Wendy and see if they can send me at least the text. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited People (Australian magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunshine Coast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jason Kingsley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lakeland High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

1810 in the United States?

I just now found a message that you sent me regarding a change I supposedly made to a page I've never even visited. This IP is for my home computer that is only used by me, so I have no idea how that it's even remotely possible unless I've been hacked by someone with that much time on their hands, nor how you sent me a message to which my only option for response is this, but whatever. This computer has never been used to even view that page, let alone make any such edits.