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/Archives/2012#Requested move was closed as "No move".

An extensive November 2012 discussion involving 55 people was closed as "maintain status quo (option B)". Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names.

A discussion in January 2013 later was never officially made into an RfC or officially closed; discussion died out with 18 editors opposed to a change and 12 in favor. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/February#Request for comment .

Discussion started in June 2013: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/June#Naming convention; speedy-closed per WP:SNOW.

December 2013-February 2014: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#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."

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.[2] (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 [[3]], 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[4], 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)

So, you've just made me aware of these guidelines and contributions requirements. I've done work in Wikipedia waaaaaaaaay back in the day, both with and without a username (back when you could just edit a page), and to see that there are standards that are developed and based on logic, I'm already seeing flaws in your logic for excluding Frank Page.

How do we move higher up the food chain? If I feel that you are employing arbitrary personal choices in what appears to be a vaguely worded section of the rules, which I do (and now I can point to actual rules that it would appear aren't being policed and/or worded properly) then how do I get this addressed by someone higher up the food chain? Where do I find the rules at govern data mismanagement by editor?

Or is this conveniently unavailable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomblink (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Randomblink. As I pointed out above, you can "move up the food chain" by improving the draft article so that it meets Wikipedia's criteria. The draft article is available for you to work on, at User:Paginator/Frank Page (cartoonist). As you can see, right now it is not ready for Wikipedia; it is just an unsourced stub. But you can fix that. Just expand the article and add references, and we can consider putting it back in the encyclopedia. When you think you have it in Wikipedia shape, I suggest you ask me or any other administrator (doesn't have to be me) to look at it and let you know if it is improved enough to be given another chance. The guidelines are at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to say: If you feel the article shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, you can move "higher up the food chain" by appealing the deletion at WIkipedia:Deletion review. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 9 October 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: [5], 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." [6] 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/

Of these, the saatchiart and gallerynawei links are not acceptable. They are simply galleries that sell his paintings. They are not independent or reliable sources.

The other three are at least from news sources, although I personally do not find them convincing. Here is what I will do: I will put the article in your user space and allow you to add these sources. When you move the article to the encyclopedia, I will nominate it for AfD again, giving my reasons. We will let the community decide if the article can stay this time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You can find the draft at User:Resadagha/Sakit Mammadov. Be sure to put the references in proper format (both the existing ones and the ones you are adding). They should be cited within the text of the article, as shown at WP:Referencing for beginners. They should be cited where they actually confirm a fact in the article, for example if the reference is about an award, it should be cited at the sentence about the award. Let me know when you are ready to move it to the encyclopedia. I will have to do that for you since the title is locked. MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much,Just give me 1 day and will solve all the problems.And add other good links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resadagha (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Resadagha: I see that you just moved the draft to Wikipedia space, without making any improvements at all. That was a complete violation of the conditions under which I restored it for you. I have deleted that new article (which you moved into the wrong namespace), and I will delete the draft from your userspace. You did not live up to any of the promises you made here, which were to improve the article and add more sources. The decision of the community at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakit Mammadov will stand. The article will remain deleted and salted. Do not ask again to try to restore the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have started to make this page again with 14 new references,i was adding them but it was suddenly deleted by you.Please send it like an editing page to me i would like to add new links now(!!!) i cut some parts from it which parts' links don't exist.-The last time I was in Germany because of my work in World Rapid chess cup that's why i didn't add new links.

Hope for change?

@MelanieN: Is there any hope that MusicAngels might someday be blocked? Every day, they get more disruptive, rude and bossy. Every page they touch erupts into an edit war. When an admin tells them to stop doing something, they ignore the warning and do it again. They keep seeking revenge long after anything happens that offends them. It takes endless effort to undo their damage, and no sensible editor wants to get in their way. And they keep saying things that are not true, which is not a desirable quality in an editor.

Today they are back pursuing the "IP-hopping troll" on User:SilkTork's user page, even after SilkTork made clear that they should stop, and they are citing evidence from User:Drmies even after Drmies clearly explained that the "evidence" does not mean what MusicAngels keeps saying it means. Nothing can stop them - every warning is ignored, every correction is ignored.

And now they are still beating the dead horse of their deleted poetry pages at User_talk:Fuhghettaboutit. Those pages had no reason to exist and were deleted with the agreement of six admins, but MusicAngels continues to waste people's time by shopping around for someone who will bring the pages back.

As far as I can tell, MusicAngels has been warned or rebuked by these admins, possibly more:

User:EdJohnston User:Drmies User:Bgwhite User:Dennis Brown User:Nyttend User:MusikAnimal User:Randykitty User:Sandstein User:SilkTork

Is there any hope that we can get back to the real work of Wikipedia instead of cleaning up after MusicAngels or avoiding editing in order to escape revenge? As long as there are editors who hold back because they know they will have to deal with MusicAngels' reactions, Wikipedia is losing the benefit of those editors' skill and knowledge. You will understand why I am posting from an IP address. I have never edited an encyclopedia page from an IP address, only this one talk page, for obvious reasons. 50.74.107.148 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm. How many admins does it take to screw in a light bulb? Drmies (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Five. One to hold the bulb, four to hold each leg of the chair that he is standing on and turn it around... (I admit we told this joke and thought it very funny when I was about 10 years old. Still makes me smile. Somewhere there's still a child in me... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just two, provided the admins are small enough to fit inside the light bulb. --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I post here with hesitation and anyone who is following MusicAngels knows why. I made a comment on a page that I had showed my students about "canonical" poetry, poetry that everyone talks about while disregarding other poets not canonized, and all of a sudden I became the subject of attacks. I have learned that you can follow people pretty closely on Wikipedia, you can follow their contributions and see what else they are up to. Such things never occurred to me before. But since he stalked me, I have followed him back and has seen what he has claimed about me and even about the hours that I am free to edit, since I am a schoolteacher. Two pages I am interested in were protected for a while while he was shouting WP:ACRONYMS at me. I nearly gave up. So please somebody please do something.JRW03 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

To "do something" would require an ANI discussion in my opinion. Personally I am not ready to do that - although I do see that they are causing problems. I have warned them specifically against repeating a couple of actions, and so far they have not crossed those lines. I will continue to monitor the situation, as I think others are also doing. Of course just because I personally have not reached the point of ANI, that doesn't mean others can't go there. If that happens, it would probably be better if it came from an admin (such as myself or one of the ones you listed above) rather than from someone with whom they have disagreed over content. --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I see that despite your disavowal, they are now quoting you at SilkTork's page, to try to prove you agree with them about "trolls"; does that push you over the edge? I'm pretty sure that sooner or later they are going to push one of us too far.. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I should add that I have been collecting an archive of evidence and diffs, against the day when I DO decide to file an ANI. The archive is offline, so don't bother looking for it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: @Drmies: MusicAngels has asked for help in outing my non-IP identity. This is the edit where they ask to out me: [7]. I wonder if this is consistent with Wikipedia policies. I thought Wikipedia had strict policies around privacy. (For the record, I have never had any interaction with MusicAngels. They would not recognize my login name. Their edits caught my attention a while ago, and I have stayed out of their way ever since. This new incident explains why.) Posted from this shared IP address: 50.74.98.197 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's an old request - several weeks old. Since that time they have had Wikipedia policy pointed out to them - about IP editors not needing to reveal their identity as long as they are not using the accounts deceptively. So hopefully they have dropped this request, which does not seem to have gotten any response. At this point I am waiting to see if they continue their problem behavior; I am hopeful they will stop focusing so much on editors and focus more on editing. But keep me posted of any new problems. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: @Drmies: This new request is in the middle of all the old stuff, so it's hard to pick it out in the middle of all that, but it is a completely new request, made today. The date stamp is 8 October 2015. Also, I am a completely different person from the other IP editor that MusicAngels was trying to out. I do not say that I have a better haircut than the other IP (cough, cough), but I am definitely different! Posted from the shared address 50.74.107.148 (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's tricky - and deceptive! They posted it on October 8, but they copy-pasted an old signature into it, so that it looks as if it was posted on August 24! --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That was the final straw for me. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive interactions by User:MusicAngels. --MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a very good summary you did on the ANI page. I don't think anybody could have done it better. Bgwhite (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bgwhite. And thanks for your contribution to exposing this user's history and habits. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Beeei Beeei, now that I've found you...

You're welcome. Sorry the other editor took my caveat as a personal issue (I'm sure it wasn't intentional and posted some explanatory links to their talk page), but good work shepherding it through. Keep up the good work! — LlywelynII 02:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in when needed. I certainly understood your objection, although I hadn't thought about the names that way. The hook is much better now, and your input was invaluable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Vanessa Holloway

Can you do anything with this? I've removed the speedy tag and tidied up references to the two books she's written, but a news and book search has drawn a complete blank - there seems to be another marginally notable person with the same name who's UK manager of Electrolux which brings up too many false positives this side of the pond. Maybe there's something on JSTOR as well? Anyway, if you can think of any way of rescuing it, please do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see what I can do a little later. --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I wasn't much help. I added to the article where she teaches, but it's not a notable position, just an "adjunct/lecturer". I could find nothing at all at Google Scholar, and no reviews of her books. Maybe that's not surprising since both were published in 2015. The preface to one of her books describes her as a "young" academic, maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON for her to have an article here. It wasn't appropriate for speedy, you were right about that, but I have a hunch it should be prodded. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for unintional disruption!!

@MelanieN: Deepest apologies for unintionally rolling back an edit on your page! I'm working on my phone and hit the wrong button and didn't know it had happened. I am deeply grateful to you for your recent actions and the last thing I want to do is disrupt your page!! I've made this kind of mistake before on my phone and said I would know better next time - and then didn't. This time I really will learn!!! - Macspaunday (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)g

Don't worry about it. It's easy to do: big fingers, small buttons. In fact that's why I had Rollback disabled; I got tired of apologizing for unintentional deletions! BTW you don't have to ping someone if you are writing on their own talk page. Those edits always get notified to the page owner. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry for the deluge of notifications! Would it be possible for you to revoke my rollback privilege if it isn't a lot of trouble? I've now done this fat finger routine twice and wasted the time of the people who had to revert. A lot better not to have it at all. Thank you, and more apologies for asking you to do more work after I spilled coffee on your page and someone else had to wipe it up. - Macspaunday (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait! I did what I should have done first and found out how to hide the Rollback button. Will do exactly that. Ignore previous request!! - Macspaunday (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL, that was fast! Personally I don't like buttons that do things immediately, bang, no chance to change your mind. I prefer a delete button where you have to confirm that, yes, delete was what you meant to do. But I guess some people do find Rollback a convenience. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I installed this rollback-confirming script by User:MusikAnimal that does exactly what's needed (and has siblings that do similar things): [8]. I'd noticed MusikAnimal's valuable interventions in admin matters, but didn't know their skills also extended in this direction! - Macspaunday (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Macspaunday: First off thank you for your kind words :) Moreover, what mobile browser are you using? Accidentally hitting rollback on a mobile device is too common, so much that we made a default-enabled script to require confirmation. Check your gadget settings. Towards the top, do you see Require confirmation before performing rollback on mobile devices checked? It should be. It's possible if you're using a not-so-popular mobile browser that the script wasn't already working for you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: The good words were entirely deserved! As for the rollback issues - That box was checked off in my preferences (I never knew it was there until just now), and my phone is an iPhone 5s running Safari (a fairly standard setup), so the strange thing is that I sometimes do get the confirmation alert about rolling back (even before installing your script), but twice in the past week or so I've made the fat-finger mistake without any notification that I could see, and then I discovered that I'd rolled back by mistake. This may be an instance of User Incompetence, not anything in the software. I'll experiment more with this - but only with rolling back edits in my own sandbox, so the world is safe (I hope) from the fatness of my fingers... - Macspaunday (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected redirect and Special:ShortPages

Hello Melanie, I hope you are well.

You fully protected the redirect Miss Universe 2015 and added {{pp-vandalism}}. That apparently makes the redirect pop up on Special:ShortPages. I am curious to see if adding Category:Protected redirects per Wikipedia:Protection policy#Available templates as a third line would result in its disappearance from that list, would you try and add it, please?

If that does not do the trick, I assume that adding {{subst:long comment}} would work as it normally does on short DAB pages.

Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, User:Sam Sailor. I removed the "page protection" template and used the "protected redirects" category instead. I also put a note on the talk page explaining about the full protection. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Enola Gay

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: Do you think it still needs it? Vandalism edits are very rare: two in August, none in September, none so far in October. This is probably a level that can be handled by normal page-watching, without needing the PC protection. If the problem gets more severe of course we can renew it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

incomplete AfD deletion

• ‎(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altair Global Relocation): File:Altair Logo.png
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartus) File:CART3color.png
• ‎(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relocation Journal)

Since you are an admin, please double-check the deleted page for other orphaned and/or non-free images. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I couldn't find any remaining images or other stuff for Relocation Journal. --MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 October

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 Beer in San Diego County, California page, your edit caused a URL 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, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi MelanieN, Thanks for your help with "my new best friend", Long story short Adam's not liked me or Charles for quite some time and I think me nominating one of his pages was probably the tip of the iceberg!, Who knows but thanks for your swift help :) –Davey2010^Talk 19:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was puzzled, because this user hadn't edited in almost a year - and their edits up until then seemed to be constructive, or at least not disruptive. So this sudden storm of vandalism seemed very out of character, out of the blue, but it was clear that immediate action was needed. I only gave him 24 hours; that should be time enough that if the account was compromised he can deal with it. If he resumes vandalizing after the 24 hours, let me or any admin know immediately, because stronger measures may be needed. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

An IP left me message using his sig[9] and that message was straight after another user left one[10] (I have a feeling both users still keep in contact judging by the IPs reply aswell as the MFD discussion so I won't be surprised if A CERTAIN user had put THAT user up to it if you're following me.... But then again I could be totally wrong!, Well I'll be away for most of the day so I'm hoping he stays away lol, Anyway I'll keep an eye and if anything kicks off I'll ping you galore , Thanks for your help again - Very much appreciated :), –Davey2010^Talk 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)