Jump to content

User talk:Melonkelon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.29.87.28 (talk) at 06:33, 20 November 2015 (→cool: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


DYK for Rebecca Simonsson

Allen3 talk 10:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kitty Jutbring

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

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)[reply]

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:
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:

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@Melonkelon. OK, I concede.

Take a look

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

And Saga Becker :).--BabbaQ (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Anna Bråkenhielm, Lo Kauppi and Micael Bindefeld. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

DYK for Lo Kauppi

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

DYK for Anna Bråkenhielm

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

DYK for Saga Becker

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melonkelon&oldid=691499980"