User talk:MelanieN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


For your perusal.....[edit]

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[edit]

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)


Information icon 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[edit]

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)/Archives/2014/February#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)/Archives/2014/February#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."

Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, then you protect it to kick me from fixing the article (and it is not really the article, it is just talk page). Before you protect the page, make sure that there is really disruptive editing there.--Paisal Rahman (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


Dear MelanieN, I am the author of You deleted it on March 23. But why? There's no explanation. I do not see a reason for doing that. Looking forward to hearing from you, --Timmrotter (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Timmrotter! The reason for deleting it is given here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Forum of Deposit Insurers (2nd nomination). I am going to restore it so you can work to improve it. I'll explain in detail on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

NK Time[edit]

I undid your recent pending on Korea. The edit appears to be correct. Unfortunately my browser crashes every time I try to paste in anything (length of the article maybe?), so if you have time to add in that ref it would be super duper. TimothyJosephWood 14:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks. I wasn't about to leave it when the person posting it seemed unclear which direction the time had changed, but the reference makes it clear. Looks like PC protection is working OK for that article? --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

your really good point in that food truck AfD[edit]

I agree with your well-stated position completely; my advocacy of a merge was based on Being Too Freaking Nice For My Own Good and not legitimate editorial criteria. This is intended 100 percent as middle-aged unironic appreciation and 0 percent as any kind of snarkiness; you reminded/taught me of a thing I need to be more cognizant of both on- and off-Wiki. Thank you so much, dear MelanieN! Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, JDL. About Being Too Freaking Nice For My Own Good: Trust me, there are a lot worse character traits that we deal with here on a daily basis. "Too Freaking Nice for Your Own Good" ought to be a barnstar! (Maybe one of the page stalkers will create one and award it to you.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

RMS Queen Mary[edit]

Good catch on RMS Queen Mary! I am working with the Shipwrecks Project to create missing "Shipwrecks and other incidents" navigation templates for years prior to 1989, and also to clean up the yearly "List of shipwrecks" articles and the articles on the ships they link to to make sure that wrecks and non-wreck incidents appear in all three (the ship article, the relevant shipwreck-and-other-incident-by-year navigation template, and the corresponding "List of shipwrecks" article for that year). In this case, "List of shipwrecks in 1949" had a sourced 1 January 1949 grounding of Queen Mary that was not mentioned in the RMS Queen Mary article, and I forgot to add the information and source to the article. It's there now, though, t what seems to me to be the most logical place. And thanks! Mdnavman (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)mdnavman

Wow, that sounds like a huge project! Thanks for adding the info to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is the sky blue?[edit]

Last edit was April. Editing is sparse, but almost none of edits pending changes were accepted. Probably vandalism; extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, George Ho. I have semi-protected it indefinitely. This is a redirect; there is no reason anyone should be editing it - or even having to watch it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

2014 Isla Vista killings[edit]

Even though one IP is blocked for disruptively blanking content, there has been still vandalism in other cases. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I extended PC for a year. I am also watching the page, so that if the blocked IPs return or another IP turns up, I can semi-protect the page. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)



I notice you've been chiming in at some deletion policy discussions I've been involved in lately. You agreed with my BLPPROD removal in one case. Is this or is this not an invalid BLPPROD? The article clearly includes sources. User:Randykitty is insisting that it is valid and keeps reverting my removal. Adam9007 (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Looks like User:Sam Sailor solved the problem. He quite properly removed the Twitter reference (things like Twitter and Facebook are never acceptable), tagged it for having only IMDb (which is not a reliable source but still a source), and nominated it for deletion. I agree with you that the original BLPPROD tag was improper. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I was surprised to find that Randykitty's an administrator. Adam9007 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
So is Drmies, one of our most respected admins, but he also favors a "reliable" criterion for BLPPROD. It's not unusual for different administrators to have different interpretations of policy. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I don't see how anyone can misinterpret "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form". Seems crystal clear to me. Adam9007 (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, clearly it doesn't seem crystal clear to everyone. The guideline is confusing and contains contradictory-appearing statements, which can also appear crystal clear taken out of context (and possibly even taken in context). Both Randykitty and Drmies have been admins longer than I have, and I respect their interpretation and practice, even if my interpretation and practice are different. So should you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
We're all both right and wrong about deletion policy? Contradictory-appearing is not the same as contradictory. The apparent contradiction is explained and cleared up in the second paragraph; the placement requirement is no sources, not no reliable sources or no secondary sources. The removal requirement is a reliable source, if the placement was valid. I cannot see where the confusion is coming from. Adam9007 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's the way I read it too (having recently taken the time to study it closely). And I will continue to decline BLP-PROD if the article contains references. But you have to accept that a lot of Wikipedia involves individual interpretation. I'm sure you've heard of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia - kind of the founding principles here. One of them is this: "Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." A result of this is that different people may have different views, and it's rarely a matter of "this person is right and everyone should do it their way." Even different admins use different standards in deciding when to delete a page, when to block a user, when and for how long to protect a page, and so on. I am more conservative in interpretation than most, that's my personality, but that doesn't mean I am right or that I should go on a crusade to get everyone to be like me. You know this because you have come up against the same thing with regard to speedy deletion, particularly A7; the difference between "significance" and "notability" is open to interpretation, and most people here interpret A7 more broadly than you do. --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, let me clarify my reasoning here. The reason that is given at WP:BLPPROD for only placing the tag "if there are no sources in any form that name the subject" is that it "avoids the need for judgement calls about reliability of sources". I prefer to interpret this more restrictively, as Drmies said on his talk page. So if there is a reference, say, to a university page for an academic (which are usually accepted as reliable, albeit not independent), I won't use BLPPROD. If there's a reference to some obscure magazine, where people may disagree about whether it's a reliable source or nit, I equally won't BLPPROD it. IF, as was the case here, where there are two references, one to the subject's Twitter account, the other to IMDb, both sources that anybody who has been here more than a few months knows or should know are not reliable at all, I put a BLPPROD, because there is no judgement call involved. I guess that's goes against the letter of BLPPROD, but like Drmies I think that it follows the spirit. Now I could very bureaucratically follow the letter. That would mean not putting a BLPPROD tag but taking it to AFD. That takes time of multiple editors that have to participate in the debate and of another admin who has to close it. I think that's a waste of effort. In 95% of all cases, a BLPPROD does the job: it gives the article creator a whole week to come up with at least one independent source (and usually, if they're able to do that, they actually come up with more) or no sources come up and after a week some admin spends 30 seconds to check the article history and then delete it. Now what's better for the encyclopedia: following the letter of BLPPROD or the spirit? And, if you really are into determining how many angels can dance on a the head of a pin, I think that a good wikilawyer certainly could make a case that ignoring sources that don't need a judgement call is actually following the letter of BLPPROD. Thanks for listening. --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I'm still respected, and maybe there will be no respect a week or two from now--still, thank you Melanie. I think we disagreed on this PROD thing, and that's fine. But I've certainly been around the block once or twice. Adam9007, you've been here since Apr 16, 2015; almost exactly a year before that Randykitty was raised to the lofty ranks of adminship. He was co-nominated by me and DGG, who's even older than me (and much, much wiser). Yes, admins can disagree, and policy statements can be contradictory, and we should probably work on it, but in the end we should be able to have rational, common-sensical discussions and interpret policy and other guidelines in a way that promotes the goals of our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Drmies, nice to see you here! (Slumming?) And Randy, thanks for your comments. I understand why some people feel as you do, but maybe your explanation may help Adam to understand it. My feeling is, most Wikipedians realize that IMDb is considered unreliable, but many article creators don't - they believe in good faith that IMDb is a fine reference. And of course the "rules" do say the initial sources don't have to be reliable, they just have to be sources. The very fact that the template {{BLP IMDb-only refimprove|date=May 2016}} exists, shows that many people in this situation do NOT consign these articles to BLPPROD. You and others do, believing that the encyclopedia will be better off that way, and you may be right. For example, the article under discussion here will almost certainly fail AfD. Does that mean AfD was a waste of time? Maybe so - or maybe not, because it is harder to recreate an article after an AfD deletion as opposed to a PROD deletion. Sometimes WP:Process is important. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Randykitty: @Drmies: @MelanieN: I'm not sure about the spirit, but the letter of BLPPROD does say no sources at start with. Don't be surprised if someone declines it on that basis, and then it'll have to go though another week, either through normal PROD or at AfD. Speaking of spirits and letters, (with A7 at least) I notice some people go only for one; some go for the letter; some the spirit. There doesn't seem to be much balance. Take Cork Airport Hotel. It may pass the letter of A7, but not the spirit. The people at the AfD seem to be ignoring the spirit entirely (with the nominator posting excuses like it's "very likely to be deleted after an AfD" and branding me a "timewaster" on my talk page for removing such tags). Personally, I don't tag articles (either with CSD or with BLPPROD) unless I'm sure it meets both the spirit and the letter. The spirit may trump the letter, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the letter. Adam9007 (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: John C. McAdams[edit]

Just a clarification - I do not believe I have been "edit warring" here. "William Gosset" (contribs) appears to be yet another throwaway IP sockpuppet in the mix, as seems to be popping up on many pages lately. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply you were (although you really shouldn't make accusations without evidence, either in talk or in your edit summaries). I noticed the reverting and went to see what it was about. I found a different problem there. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's put it this way for evidence's sake:
Will that suffice for evidence? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
If you think someone is a sock/meat puppet and have evidence, take it to WP:SPI. I see that you did that once before with regard to this article, and your evidence was not convincing, but you could always try again with this new account. In the meantime, don't accuse people in edit summaries, and don't call it "vandalism" when someone disagrees with you on content. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see new SPI page, and let me know if you believe more evidence needs to be provided. Thanks. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, something is going on here. Whoever they are, they're playing games. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) You're listing John Pack Lambert as a possible sock??? Don't be ridiculous! He's been here since 2006 and has almost 300,000 edits. This kind of "everyone who disagrees with me must be a sockpuppet" attitude makes your SPI referrals likely to be dismissed out of hand. Likewise, you list a bunch of "stale" accounts that haven't edited in months - the checkusers won't bother with those. Anyhow, aren't many of those IPs the same ones you listed in your SPI request for Levasquez76? A request which did not impress the SPI people as having any validity? At the least you need to provide a link to the Levasquez SPI archive.
What I thought you would do, and what you should do if you want this to be taken seriously, is to request a new investigation of Levasquez as a possible sockmaster (that's how you connect it to the archive - read the instructions). You would ask about Gossett as a possible sock of Levasquez (isn't that what you are suggesting?), with diffs specifically comparing his edits to those of Levasquez. (Personally I find the connection unconvincing based on the diffs, but either request an investigation or drop your accusations.) Don't bother the SPI folks with stale, already-investigated-and-dismissed accounts, and don't drag in a longtime user who is obviously not anybody's sock and not running any socks. IMO until you learn what does and does not indicate a likely sock, you should not accuse people of socking - unless you want to be dragged to ANI for personal attacks. False accusations of socking are taken seriously there. --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
To make my position clearer: I don't see any evidence that Gossett is anybody's sock, and if I were you I would say "never mind" at your SPI request and quit accusing him. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
To clarify: I think Johnpacklambert is the likely sockmaster, given edit histories and his shown connection to and comments on McAdams' blog. Does that need to be refiled listing him as such? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I strongly advise against making that accusation, and I don't think it will stand up. Go ahead if you want, but watch out for a WP:BOOMERANG. My actual advice to you is to drop the whole thing. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Need advice[edit]

Hi. Long time no speak. I've run into an issue, and quite frankly, haven't the foggiest idea how to proceed. I created a small article on a French-born American actor, André Cheron (actor) last year. I used the diacritic accent for that's how AFI lists him, and the other two sources (although one is imdb, so not entirely reliable), also use the diacritic. Yesterday, another editor, without discussion, moved the page to without the diacritic, stating the reason, "subject died in the United States after spending his entire film career in Hollywood productions --- no indication he was ever billed using an accented given name".

My issue is that the former title is the correct one. All sources point to it, in fact AFI carefully points out that in some films he was billed without the accent, which means that in other films he was billed with it, which kind of makes the rationale for the page move incorrect. Normally, I would simply revert, and ask to begin a discussion until consensus is reached. However, that option is not available to me in this case. Since the other editor would also be unable to revert, any thoughts on how to proceed? Thanks in advance. Onel5969 TT me 14:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sam Sailor - it's difficult to ascertain simply from the google books (or other) search results. Take for example this source, which on the search engine is shown without the accent, but when you actually view the source, the accent is used. To me, the over-riding rationale is the AFI source, which, while not infallible, is still the best source for older film info. Using their methodology of using the main name of an actor, and then annotating the filmography with "credited as" with the variant. Onel5969 TT me 16:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for moving the page without a discussion, especially since the move violated my own tendency to hew as close as possible to the AFI Catalog. My original intention was to make Andre Cheron (actor) a redirect to André Cheron (actor), but after seeing the unaccented form of his name in the credits of 1938's Artists and Models Abroad, I decided to move the main title header. The great majority of Cheron's film appearances were unbilled and it is likely that the only film credits in which his name was accented would have been in the Hollywood-made French-language versions that cast him in more-prominent supporting roles, but that would still nullify the statement, "no indication he was ever billed using an accented given name". Taking into consideration a possible administrative view of this matter, subsequent discussions may be held at Talk:Andre Cheron (actor). As a point of interest, three related examinations of a topic similar to this one may be viewed at Talk:Malin Åkerman#Requested move (2007) as well as at Åkerman and Proposed Move (2010). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries, Roman Spinner - I appreciate the work you do on film articles (even if I don't always agree with you). I agree with you regarding the French versions of films; I haven't done all the research yet, but the contemporaneous sources I have checked seem to mirror the billing as in the AFI filmography. But no sense continuing to clog up MelanieN's talk page (and MelanieN, as far as I'm concerned, feel free to delete this entire thread). We can continue this on the article's talk page. Onel5969 TT me 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the understanding reply, Onel5969 and, since Wikipedia will be around for centuries, I am transferring this thread to Talk:Andre Cheron (actor) for historical reference in case the matter comes up again in future indefinite. In consultation with Sam Sailor and MelanieN, of course, since this is her talk page, we could request a speedy deletion of the André Cheron (actor) redirect, so that the main title could be moved back to its original form, if everyone agrees. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@Onel5969, Sam Sailor, and Roman Spinner: Thanks for the interesting thread, all, and sorry I was offline yesterday and missed it. I have no opinion about with-or-without the accent (in fact I recently lost a similar discussion at the article Julian Castro). But I would suggest that whatever title you wind up with, you leave the others as redirects. And I'd like to compliment all of you on the cordial and respectful way you are discussing this. I'll take a look at the moved discussion to see if you have reached a decision that needs admin help. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Darrell 'Big D' McNeil[edit]

I must of forgot to put the reason-I got rid of the Big D part as there was no page for Darrell McNeil and pages did link to that name also to make it easier. No clue why it was moved back to Big D. Wgolf (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put it back to Darrell McNeil. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blibdoolpoolp[edit]

While I think a redirect was certainly the correct close, could I perhaps ask you to restore the page history? There's potentially content worth merging, and, as there's a redirect anyway, I'm not sure I see the value of deletion. Thanks! (I'd do it myself, but I wouldn't want to be accused of wheel-warring.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The main reason I deleted it was that there were several !votes for "delete," and virtually all the information is already present in the target article. However, I didn't notice how extensive the article history was. My bad; I will restore it and then redirect it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
All fixed. Sorry about that, I'm not usually that quick with the TNT. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Um, sorry, here, but could I get you to verify that, by "several !votes for 'delete'", you actually counted? Because what I see is exactly two, counting the nom. Am I missing something here, or was your original close as delete actually against numerical consensus as well? Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
In reviewing I agree that the "delete" part of my close was not really justified by the discussion. Counting !votes there are two "delete", two "keep or redirect", and three "merge/redirect". Not my best close ever. --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dmitry Polyakov AfD[edit]

Hi! Thanks for closing the AfD for Dmitry Polyakov — I'd like to request userfication of the article so I can continue working on it, if that's all right :) Thanks! Goldenshimmer (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Gladly. You'll find it at User:Goldenshimmer/Dmitry Polyakov. Good luck! --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks! :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnny Downs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Here Come the Girls and What a Man (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) 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Questions for you[edit]

On occasion, I've noted that a user will register more than one account and have the user pages for one forward to the other. One will be an abbreviated version, which I've seen used to reduce the number of characters in a signature.

To the point, User:ATS was registered in 2005, used for 15 edits on 25 June that year, and nothing in the 11 years since. Would I be allowed to take over the account for the purpose outlined above? If so, how would I go about it? 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Tiny, and thanks for the note. Usernames are way above my pay grade - only WP:Stewards and other global renamers can handle username issues. What you are trying to do is called usurpation of an existing username. As I read that page, it may not be possible to usurp the username ATS, since there are some edits attached to that name. But I don't really know what I am talking about so don't rely on that. You could post your request at the usurpation page, or you could ask at the talk page of someone who is a steward and is active at enwiki, for example MBisanz. Xeno also seems to be familiar with username issues. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Much obliged—and, you get paid?! Face-grin.svg 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Oops - you weren't supposed to know that. Yes, in fact our salaries got doubled this year. Twice zero is still... oh well. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Metal ions in life sciences[edit]

I believe that the deletion of this article has been premature. I had notified some other interested users about the possible deletion only yesterday and they have not had time to make a contribution to the debate. There is a clear split of opinion between scientists and non-scientists with scientists mostly against deletion.

As the author of the article I have been waiting for all opinions to be expressed before making a reasoned case against deletion. The basis of this case is that the editors of the two series of books have made an outstanding contribution to science by editing and producing more than 50 volumes of reviews. Indeed, Helmut Sigel, now emeritus professor at Basel University, was one of the founders of "bioinorganic chemistry" as a field of study. I believe that this is a notable achievement and deserves to be celebrated by an article in Wikipedia.

As a retired professor of chemistry myself, I recognise the significance of these reviews as of fundamental importance to the understanding of human, animal and plant biochemistry. That is why I created the article. I have been updating it for more than 5 years without any previous challenge. I do not understand why this challenge has arisen now and not previously. Petergans (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Petergans: I will be glad to restore the article as a draft in your private user space, if you wish, where you can work on it and improve it to try to meet the objections raised at the AfD discussion. As I interpret the discussion, the initial problem was the listing of the entire tables of contents of the books. That was removed, but the article still consists mainly of a listing of the volume titles. What should be the meat of the article is the section "historical development", but it is just an unsourced stub. The lack of independent sources (as opposed to primary sources like the books themselves, publisher websites, etc.) was a major concern of the discussants. You actually did list journal reviews of many individual volumes, but the discussants felt they were routine acknowledgments of publication rather than actual reviews. I think what people were looking for was some kind of independent commentary about the significance of the series (or both series, since you are including two series under this one title) as a whole.
About "waiting for all opinions to be expressed" before making your case for retention: the AfD discussion was relisted twice, so the discussion had already lasted three times as long as the usual discussion (3 weeks instead of the usual 1 week). And you had posted multiple comments, even if you apparently felt you hadn't yet made your "reasoned case". (BTW "notifying other interested users" sounds like canvassing which is a no-no. However, you might ask those same interested users to help you develop a revised article that will pass muster the next time.)
Here's a possible different approach: You say that part of your motivation here is to recognize the work of Helmut Sigel. Maybe you should write an article about him, rather than about this series? I see from Google Scholar that he wrote (co-wrote) several highly cited handbooks, not just this series. If you can find cited biographical information about him (his university website might be enough), I think he would easily meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC - even better if you could find an actual description of him as a founder of the field of bioinorganic chemistry. And you could list this series and his other books in the biographical article, with a redirect from the series title to lead people there.
In light of these comments, do you want me to restore the article to your user space so you can work on it, or would you rather start an article about Professor Sigel from scratch? Of course, there is nothing to prevent you from doing both. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your constructive response. An article on Helmut Sigel is certainly a possibility. I have known him professionally for many years, but I am a chemist, not a biographer, so it would be a struggle to do it. Petergans (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to be a "writer"; you can just follow the format of similar articles. I have written quite a few biographies of scientists and physicians myself, which you could use as a kind of template or example of how to organize such an article. Examples: M. Brian Maple, John K. Frost, C. Lockard Conley, John H. Yardley. As you can see the layout is pretty straightforward. But it's up to you if you want to try this or not. --MelanieN (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
And here's an example of a very simple, basic biography: Robert Edmund Edwards.--MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

List of something-or-other in Europe[edit]

Please see this thread at ANI. Since you opened the RfC (in July 2015) do you have any comment on the decisiveness of the result? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Dubious attitude[edit]

You have to read that the page Hungarians have an observation of an administrator who claimed the page has too many pictures. Also you have to notice that the info cassette contain a picture that is not admitted according to general rules. If you admit this kind of picture in the info cassette it is a discrimination. Your actions show a dubious attitude. If administrators contradict administrators, Wiki is only a propaganda encyclopedia and you are a bad example. This is why Wikipedia is a dubious source as many journals wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the fact that I semi-protected the article Hungarians. You should be glad I protected it. You were the reason I did so. You kept deleting a picture; you did it five times in a row. You could have been blocked for edit warring. In the future, if you make an edit and someone reverts it, do not keep making the same edit. Instead, go to the article's talk page and discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't Kill the Fun close review[edit]

Hello Melanie. Would you mind reviewing the NAC of the "Don't Kill the Fun" AfD? Wouldn't redirect be more appropriate, similar to your close here? Thanks. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, JJMC, and thanks for your note. Redirect might have been the best outcome, but only one person suggested it, and only at the last minute. They didn't even name the target they wanted it redirected to. So IMO the closer correctly interpreted the discussion as no consensus. Remember, closers are supposed to interpret the consensus and implement the result of the discussion - not to impose what they think would be a good idea. The other option would have been a third relisting, but third relistings are discouraged. Of course, there is nothing to prevent us from boldly redirecting it now! IMO that could be done without reopening the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and redirected it to the artist. (The album was deleted at AfD.) The problem with redirecting it outside of AfD is that the creator will likely revert/recreate the article (as he has done for many articles that get deleted/redirected at AfD, most recently So Good (Bratz song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). — JJMC89(T·C) 01:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's his privilege. If he does you may have to renominate it at AfD, this time recommending redirect. With a no-consensus close, there is no rule against an immediate renomination. BTW that template {{R from song}} looks like a great addition to this kind of redirect - and could even be quoted in your nomination if you renominate. --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Melanie. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to review the article on AWK Solutions[edit]

Hello Melanie

It has been almost 3 months that the article for AWK Solutions was deleted from wikipedia. You then helped me to have the article copied in sandbox, so that it cane be improved and updated with notable references. although it took some time, but i think we do have some good references for this article. I have already updated a few refences and will add more in the day to come.

So i would request you to please review the article and let me know if i can now submit this in wikipedia. URL provided below

--Startupindia (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Startupindia, and thanks for the note. I'm sorry, but the article is not ready for Wikipedia - not al all. The language is virtually identical to the version that was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AWK Solutions. You have added a few references, but they are either directory listings or press releases. Please look again at WP:CORP. There has to be INDEPENDENT coverage of the company from RELIABLE sources like newspapers etc. Directories and press releases are not independent and do not help the company meet the requirements of WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Convention Results[edit]

As a consistent contributor to political topics I am curious as to your thoughts on including the Libertarian Convention results by state for Template:Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 and re-ordering the candidates based on these results. Being that the delegate votes at the convention ultimately decide the winner of the Libertarian primary I believe they should be the results displayed in the template (or at least alongside the votes from the previous state primary ballots which give the official popular vote). I have begun a discussion on the template talk page and would like to have a few users involved in the discussion to come to a good consensus instead of a consensus based on the opinions of only two users (myself being one of them). Appreciate any feedback and if you respond here please give me a ping. Acidskater (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't have an opinion. Thanks for doing this though. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump University[edit]

I generally tend to bend over backward to educate new editors, but in this case it's a waste of time and effort to get this IP to cooperate. They're spinning out of control and simply not listening. Moreover although they're already at 4RR the edit warring boards will accomplish nothing since they're using dynamic IP addresses. The simple solution is RPP, which would probably be inevitable anyway due to the recent high level of disruption by other IPs. I requested temporary semi-protection. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


I got blocked for a freaking week for removing contested BLP material from that article that still has not been restored. And it won't be. We're not pushing bullshit into the article. Don't care if you're an admin that hates Trump. Get in line. Doc talk 06:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea who blocked you or why. And you are not very good at explaining what you are talking about. After some research, it appears you are probably talking about this addition, which you reverted. Let's take it to the talk page - and let's stay civil, shall we? --MelanieN (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you get what a "firm consensus" is on an article under ARBCOM sanctions. 2 people commented for, and I commented against. 2 days passed, then your "decision".[2] Are you confident that a firm consensus was established before you added that? Please explain how.

I'm sorry if I come off as uncivil - I know you're a good admin and have had good interactions with you in the past. I'm not even a Trump fan, really: but I see how his stuff is being treated differently. It's against the very nature of a "neutral" encyclopedia and it should not be happening. Doc talk 05:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll reply at the article talk page. Let's keep the conversation in one place, please. --MelanieN (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Restored copy Sargon of Akkad (YouTube)[edit]

Hello, could you restore a copy of this article in my userspace? Thanks. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, here it is: User:Mark Schierbecker/Sargon of Akkad (YouTube). Good luck with it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Judge Curiel[edit]

Just for the record, I am not the one who inserted the part of the Gonzales column about speaking fees for the Clintons. That firm was appointed before trump announced his presidential campaign, and I agree it's generally a good idea to avoid guilt by association stuff. So, I will not object at this time to your removal. We'll see if anyone else does, such as the person who inserted it. Thanks, and I just wanted to make it clear that I am 100% innocent, not guilty, and didn't do it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I never thought (or suggested) it was you. On the contrary, you seem to bend over backward to be fair and impartial, and to respect consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Melanie, I appreciate that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, WP:Blockquote says quotes of 40 words or more should be blockquoted. I have no objection if you'd like to cut some of the quote so it is less than 40 words. Maybe paraphrase the rest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. The last sentence was clearer as a paraphrase anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, we now Wlink twice to NCLR. Per MOS:QUOTE, "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this edit of yours, I was not aware that any discussion anywhere at Wikipedia had concluded that the boycott information should be completely absent from every article at Wikipedia.I have long observed an increasing tendency at Wikipedia for political articles to degenerate into one-sided propaganda based upon the political views of a majority of editors, and then that slant is maintained by sanctions against any editor who has sought NPOV. But maybe you were already well aware of all this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's discuss it at the talk page. And please WP:AGF and refrain from attributing people's edits to your assumption about their motives. --MelanieN (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
You know exactly what I think of this, so there's no need for me to repeat it elsewhere, and then be accused of being overly-argumentative.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Aaron B. Del Mar recreated as Aaron Del Mar[edit]

I don't know what was in the deleted article, but I imagine they were very similar. Can you tell if this is G4?  B E C K Y S A Y L E 23:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Becky, and thanks for the note. It is actually very different from the previous article and so is not eligible for G4. However, it is not an improvement; in fact it contains far LESS material than the previous article and fewer references, and does not really make any claim of notability. I think it may be eligible for A7, if that's allowed after an AfD (I haven't encountered this situation before). The alternative would be another AfD. Feel free to quote me. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sebastian Solano[edit]

Hi Melanie, I wonder if you wouldn't mind moving the deleted Sebastian Solano info to a draft for me? I'd like to reuse somem of the research on other toipcs. Thanks! Earflaps (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Earflaps. Here it is: User:Earflaps/Sebastian Solano. However, I would advise against launching it as an article again. Since it has been AfD-deleted twice, a third creation is likely to be not only deleted but salted. --MelanieN (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I only meant to redirect the deleted page to Committee Entertainment#Sebastian Solano, and maybe add a few more sentences there as a summary. Thanks a bunch! Earflaps (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Borsoka has once again added his edits[edit]

User:Borsoka has taken advantage of the protection of the article to enforce his POV and has again added his edits here. Also please note that my edits were well-sourced with highly reliable sources. Both John Man and Peter W. Edbury are reliable scholars that I've added for my edits. Please revert Borsoka's edits as he is breaking the rules to enforce his ill-informed POV. (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The place to work these issues out is at the talk page. And the deciding factor at the talk page is consensus. I see there is a prolonged argument (I wouldn't call it a discussion) at the talk page. And I see that you do not appear to have consensus on your side. If you are sure you are right and they are both wrong, you could take it to WP:Dispute resolution. But you'll need much better arguments that what I see there. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you read and understand what Consenus is. It's not a process to enforce what remains and what doesn't by matter of agreement and votee of number of individuals, Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's an effort to include legitimate concerns of all editors. (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Question re: deletion[edit]

Per your recent deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League, should the same be done for 2017–18 UEFA Champions League and 2017–18 UEFA Europa League? Hmlarson (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Hmlarson, and thanks for your note. I have no opinion on that; it would depend on the results of an AfD. As administrator I don't personally judge the worthiness of the page; I just evaluate and enforce the consensus at discussion. The discussants at another AfD might or might not come up with the same consensus as they did at this one. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for feedback[edit]

Hi, there. You and I have differed concerning edits on an article a couple of years ago, but I respect your opinion. Could you take a look at my edits this evening of the Turner/Doe case and let me know what you think? My feeling is that some editors are trying to retry the case by mischaracterizing the evidence presented in court. I hope my objections and modifications are within Wikipedia guidelines. Activist (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about the minor tweaks you made - to make it clear that this is him talking and not a fact - I don't see anything controversial about them. I was puzzled by your edit summary Remove contentions that the jury did not believe and witnesses contradicted - See talk. Did you mean to actually remove some material? Or just to clarify that it was according to him? --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I meant that the contentions were solely Turner's, and should not be put on a par, remedied I hoped, via the language I tweaked, with the physical and witness evidence and the jury's conclusions. Thanks. Activist (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Activist: But you might want to tweak your latest addition, about the Swedish graduate students. The way you have it now - "Turner was arrested on January 18, 2015, after police arrived and encountered him pinned by two Swedish graduate students, Carl-Fredrik Arndt (sitting atop his legs) and Peter Lars Jonsson (tripping him and holding his arms). Two others, Beau Barnett and Nicholas Sinclair, then aided Arndt and Jonsson." - seems to muddle the time frame. The sentence starts out describing what police found when they arrived, but "tripping him" and "then aided" are describing the earlier actions by the grad students - rather than describing the scene when police arrived. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, much! I'll fix it. Activist (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Upon rereading, it needed substantial tweaking and corrections. I think it will work better now. Regarding the DDA's trial statement at the end of the retitled "Incident Details" section: Do you think it should be located below, above the D.A.'s post-sentencing statement? Activist (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting that redundant sentence fragment. As I tried to clean up the section and post changes, I ran into edit conflicts that had me exhaustively redoing it, and I left it in while rushing to finish before I encountered still another. You may agree that when many editors are somewhat contemporaneously involved in a complex story, the changes can get confusing and disjointed as the article grows organically. Activist (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Totally agree. That kind of situation can be really frustrating. All you can do is make small edits one at a time, and hit "save" quickly before someone else beats you to it. And things get by you. Happens all the time. For that matter, I gave up trying to follow the history, who-did-what, and just looked at the final result. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion[edit]

Thanks for your input on the Ed Catmull article. I actually did more than say "go to the talk page". [3]. It's a continuation of an earlier discussion of the material. Also, biased, contentious material in a BLP is one of the few enumerated exceptions to the 3RR. I'd consider saying that the subject "violated the Sherman Act" and that he'd done other unlawful things is quite possibly biased. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I missed that; your recent comment isn't date stamped so it appears to be part of the 2014 discussion. You may very well be right about this entry, and I guess you could take it to the BLP board - but your best bet would probably be to find some other person to help you with the reverting. BTW I gave a much more severe warning to the other party, and if he resumes it could be grounds for a block. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, I appreciate the input on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Niteshift36: One other thought: I took a closer look at the disputed entry. If it was neutrally written - just to say that he gave a deposition in that case - it could be acceptable. But I noticed another problem: the material is copied verbatim from the source, including the parts that are NOT in quotes. If they add it again it could be removed as copyvio, as well as questionable from a BLP standpoint. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Good to know regarding the copyvio. I'm not too convinced on the inclusion, even if neutral. I just feel that since he wasn't personally sued or there wasn't a court finding that he did anything wrong, including it is really not the way to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Kai, Canadian Singer[edit]

Hello, I work for the management of Kai (Alessia De Gasperis Brigante), the Canadian singer. Can you please tell me why you would delete her wikipedia page? She is a well known singer with a song on the radio and has just signed with Warner Brothers in the USA. So a Wiki page for her is something essential? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magusmusic (talkcontribs) 17:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Melanie, I got a message about this as well. I've pinged you on my talk page about it, and I'd love to get your opinion about a possible restore to Draft: space. See the thread User talk:C.Fred#hello there. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ivory Hours softdelete[edit]

I would like to have the page re-instated in order to add additional information to the band's page. They meet criteria #1, #4, and #9 on the music notability list, including the following links which I offer as additional sources to the ones that were already on the page: newswire, Tour info, New Years concert with Canadian band Sloan, CBC Radio 2 Top 20 Write up about CMW, and This Review (if it counts)Admittedly the band is still new to mainstream Canadian music, and they are an independent band, but that shouldn't limit their presence on Wikipedia and I know with time more sources/information will become available to add to the page. Bananarama10101 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bananarama10101: OK, I have restored it, and I placed a note on the talk page to prevent speedy deletion as WP:G4. Good luck with the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A random musing on your wit and wisdom section[edit]

If 16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone is a Rod Serling, and half of a large intestine is a 1 semicolon, what is the exchange rate of a pound of Rod Serling (aka the pound Serling) and a full colon? MSJapan (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll be franc: I never had a particular yen to find out. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal at Donald Trump Presidential Campaign 2016[edit]

First, thank you for your input in the Talk for this article. Second, I wanted to clarify this edit where you removed some content as unsourced in the article. I see the following sentence in the Huff Post article that's cited: "They are fed up with politicians." Wouldn't this support the statement?CFredkin (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I took out the sentence where HuffPost focused on just one explanation for why business owners feel the way they do - "fed up with politicians" - out of four or five explanations that are given in the lengthy article (including Obamacare, immigration, etc.). It would take a paragraph to explain the "why" based on that HuffPost article. And in any case the important thing in that article is the fact that business owners are his second-biggest donors. The "why" isn't needed. Do we say "why they do it" for every fact we cite? --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
In the next paragraph, we say why the business leaders cited are endorsing Clinton. Similarly, it seems fair to explain why small businesses support Trump.CFredkin (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Something like "they are fed up with politicians and opposed to Obamacare and immigration"? We could source that from the article. There might have been some other reasons that I missed. --MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable summary. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
blocked sock



I told an editor he made a mistake. Is that an attack? Grow a backbone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a summary of wikipedia:

  1. People say I attack. I didn't
  2. I say, I didn't attack, WTF.
  3. You say, see, there's your attack! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Funny thing is, most people don't EVER get told they are attacking, or told to stop it. Does it seem like there might be something different about the way you post, since people keep telling you that? --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You people just don't like to be told when you are wrong. Are you done yet? I'd love, just once, for a wikipedia editor to say they are wrong. Good god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User: Stnicklaus3[edit]

FYI, It appears that most, if not all, of his/her edits have been vandalism.CFredkin (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a second warning to their page. My hunch is that they are smart enough to string out their vandalism so that they never do a batch of it at once and get caught. But I'll watch them. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Posted to discussion board but not sure it materialized. Someone edited other than myself. How do you monitor to have it exclusively to myself. Appreciate it and need no more threatening notices. Stnicklaus3 (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Advice pages[edit]

FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Kudpung: I don't have a problem with that question. It's good faith and better than some of the other questions there. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I see it as clear provocation, having nothing to do with the RfA, and possibly even racist. These are the kind of users who possibly do not understand our Anglo-american culture and the special global nature of the English Wikipedia. The sooner we can introduce a 90/500 rule for RfA, the better. Anyway, that's my opinion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with that question, and it could have a perfectly innocuous answer. Perhaps JJE got scared of de-wiki by the SuperProtect scandal, perhaps he prefers to improve his English by working on this Wikipedia, perhaps he likes to work on the Wikipedia that has the most traffic ... throwing around accusations of racism is really not on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I haven't even read the situation, but I'm 100% in favor of an at-least 90/500 rule for RfA !votes. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump Campaign & the Star of David[edit]

Regarding the recent Trump Tweet Star of David kerfuffle, I see that the Wikipedia article on Badges notes (albeit without citation) that Sheriff's badges may have five, six, or seven points. If have no idea if any research has been done on this, but if there's not a blog, there should be. kencf0618 (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump campaign edit[edit]

I agree, I did not hear Lewandowski say it was supposed to depict the shape of a sheriff's badge- however, you also removed what I added which was correct. In the source I cited, the video shows Lewandowski saying nobody would be talking about it if the money was absent from the background. Ghoul flesh Jack-o-lantern.svgtalk 16:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: I see. We normally cite the transcript or report about a speech, not the actual video (which is a Primary Source). How about this: let's wait and see if that part of his comment gets significantly reported by independent sources. If it becomes noteworthy per coverage by independent sources, we should include it. If not, it is not an important or notable part of his comments, and we should not include it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. Ghoul flesh Jack-o-lantern.svgtalk 19:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ghoul flesh: I actually doubt if it will get picked up, because it was kind of a weird thing to say. The dollar bills were actually the LEAST controversial thing about the image - compared to the star and the legend "Most corrupt candidate ever". --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly why I included it, it seemed like a really odd comment. But you're right, if it gains more notability it should be re-added. Ghoul flesh Jack-o-lantern.svgtalk 19:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for freewire[edit]

hello, what should I do moving forward on the no consensus vote on my speedy deletion nomination for freewire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUSConservative (talkcontribs) 06:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, USConservative, and thanks for your note! I took a look at the article and made some changes. I made it clear the company appears to be out of business. If you want you could renominate it with a stronger argument for deletion; your original argument (lack of recent sources) was not very convincing. You should point out that the company was never notable; that it appears to be out of business; and that there currently is another company, FreeWire Technologies, which could cause confusion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Noticeboard post[edit]

Greetings, I noticed that you called me out on the Edit Warring Noticeboard for not discussing my edits in Talk before making them. I don't believe Rockypedia discussed his edits before making them either. In fact, I don't believe anyone there, except for you and even you don't do it all the time, has done that. I agree that that would be preferable, but in my experience that rarely happens anywhere on the project. Given that, I'm curious why you chose to call me out on it.CFredkin (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

To point out that the edit he reverted had not been discussed - in other words was potentially controversial which would give him every right to revert it. And also because you were calling HIM out on the Discretionary Sanctions without following them yourself. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
After reviewing the sequence of edits again, I think I see your point. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

To any stalkers who happen to see this[edit]

I'm going to be gone for the next 10 days, but I have an ongoing situation at the article Huy Duc. Could I ask some of you to keep an eye on it? The article, created in April 2015, was calm until about a week ago, when the original author (who actually wrote only about one-fifth of the current article) suddenly started trying to delete it. They say they regret writing it, and their argument for deletion seems to be that the guy is pro-communist; they also claimed "factual errors" but did not point any out. They do not understand the systems here but they have tried everything. So far they have tagged it with PROD three times and db-author four times. After the second db-author I sent it to AfD, where it was kept - but they have tried twice more since then. I have posted notes on their talk page but they don't respond. I have warned them they are getting disruptive. I'd appreciate some eyes on the situation while I'm gone. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. I have really tried to be gentle with this person, because I believe they are in good faith and just don't understand how Wikipedia works. Also their English seems to be very limited. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Asking for your help on Ben Wedeman[edit]

The subject is a journalist who often works in the Middle East, a married heterosexual, and his page has been repeatedly vandalized, such as here and here and here. Problem is, incorrect information about Wedeman's sexual orientation can cause him real trouble in the Middle East. I am not an administrator but I'm wondering if you might intervene with some kind of page protection?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely needed. I gave it a week. Thanks for letting me know. --MelanieN (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

John Ducas[edit]

Have you seen the edits that were made to the John Ducas article before they were swiftly removed? Is it not noteworthy to add? TacomaBound6 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw them. I would probably have removed them too. They struck me as original research and synthesis. And in a way they are irrelevant; the article doesn't claim that the corporation made any money. But if you want to argue for the inclusion of this information, do it on the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN=melania kNavss trump[edit]

Stop protecting Trump's page from White supremacist/Fascist/Anti-Semitic/Racist/fraud/ponzi-scheme references. It's a conflict of interest issue. Thanks. (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure you can take this to mean you're doing an excellent job in a difficult situation. --NeilN talk to me 16:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the socks are overflowing the drawer today - and spilling all over the floor. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


Greetings, I'd be interested to get your input regarding the reference to this term in the lede at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not able to follow or participate significantly in discussions right now. Sorry. MelanieN alt (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems ...[edit] you are on vacation, maybe you can give a quick look on this little stub I've created after a long time. Jim Carter 21:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks interesting. My internet access is very limited right now. I will look at it next week. MelanieN alt (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


Edits using my user were not done by me. Instead of threatening notifications, please advise how I can monitor editing to only be done by myself. Stnicklaus3 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You are saying that your account has been compromised - that is, someone else was able to edit under your user name. That is a serious admission and you need to make sure that never happens again. It is up to you to make sure that no one else uses your account; that security happens at your end. You have two choices. One is to fix whatever caused someone else to have access to your account. If someone knows your password, change it. If someone else uses your computer while you are still logged in, restrict access to your computer. If you can't do one of these things, you should report that the account has been compromised and ask to have it blocked. Then create a new user name for yourself, one that you DO have adequate security for. If your account is used again for vandalism, and you again claim that it was not done by you, this account will be blocked permanently as a compromised account. MelanieN alt (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello M. I hope that you are well. Many many congrats on this!!!! Where does the time go? Best wishes on the next ten :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! You beat me to the 10-year mark by more than a year, so YOU tell ME where the time goes! --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
That would call for original research. C'mon, Melanie! --NeilN talk to me 20:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't we use this as a source? --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Where does it say that's the "official" site? Please prove the source is reliable. Please show the the source is a recognized expert in this area by providing their full CV and five independent sources attesting to that fact. Is the source [insert unpreferred ethnicity]? If so, they're obviously bias[sic] and can't be used. In fact, trying to use them as a source shows you are incapable of being neutral. Please recuse yourself from this entire area. --NeilN talk to me 21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, NOW I understand where the time goes. Thanks for the illustration. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This banter is excellent M and N. I always miss the fun stuff. I hope that you both have an excellent week. MarnetteD|Talk 22:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you, Melanie, for the lovely barnstar! Thanks in turn to you for your always-equanimous work - both editorial and administrative. Neutralitytalk 02:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump's tax returns[edit]

Melanie, I really like the controversy paragraph you added, but I honestly think that this issue is not equivalent to the other listed controversies. I presented my argument on the talk page for the article and hope you and others consider it. I believe that half of the other controversies listed are created to keep people from talking about Trump's problem with his tax returns. I am not sure if I am using these pages correctly, but I see a lot of positive comments for you as an editor. Pmacdee (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


Can we just get indef-semi protection on this article? It has been routinely vandalized by IPs for four months now. I know it isn't the best decision but I get the feeling the article is linked to some kind of a 4-chan type of forum somewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid my analysis is that it's not to that point. I usually look first at the protection log: has the article needed increasingly long periods of protection? How soon after the protection expires does it get reinstated (suggesting that vandalism resumed as soon as the protection expired)? What the history shows here is intense bursts of vandalism, treated with a very short period of protection (my two days was actually on the long side), and then many weeks of calm. I know this pattern can be frustrating for the page watchers, and I encourage you to request protection immediately when it starts up again - because of the rapid-fire nature of the vandalism when it occurs, and also to establish a track record to see if indef is ultimately needed. Personally, if it isn't a BLP problem (that's another situation), I impose indefinite protection only if the article has needed months-long periods of protection, with very short intervals before another months-long period is needed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I just wanted to say that I really admire the work you've done on Donald Trump related articles. Not a fun or easy body of articles to edit, I'm sure, but I think you've done a great job! Safehaven86 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Safehaven86! I don't usually work much on political articles, but I found that to be an area that really needs help to stay verified and neutral. I'm not the only one trying to keep it that way, but I appreciate your comments. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


I wanted to apologise for exaggerating the explanation for mistake made by the Trump speechwriter: She was not placing full blame on Ms. Trump. I have corrected both the one mistake you found here and another one that you might have missed. Again, on my honour, it was an honest, good faith edit mistake. Is my revision more accurate? Thx. (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No need to apologize; simple difference of opinion or emphasis. Yours was based on what the AP article said so nothing wrong there. But I still think the AP article goes too far in saying the speechwriter placed any blame on Melania; at most it was a misunderstanding between them. If Melania says to a speechwriter, "these are some thoughts I like", she ought to be able to rely on the speechwriter to ask if they are direct quotes, and to make sure they don't get used verbatim. The speechwriter is a professional; Melania isn't; she shouldn't be expected to know these nuances, and I don't think the speechwriter meant to imply that she should have. IMO the speechwriter took all the blame on herself, but that's not how the AP reporter read it. BTW you added that material in a separate place in the article from the speechwriter's apology and statement; don't you think it would go better there? --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It is possible that I placed this update/clarification in the wrong place, and, if so, you're welcome to move it around as needed. However, I think that I was balanced in my description of "shared blame." Nonetheless, if you think it would be possible to put in language about a misunderstanding (which is the obvious situation), that would be good. Neither the writer (McIver) nor the speaker (Ms. Trump) did anything malicious. But, at the end of the day, there was, clearly, carelessness and human error on both parties, so that should be chronicled. ((Oops - ADDENDUM: - I made a mistake - see below: Both articles needed that one edit about the speech mistake, but only the writer's article needed more detail: So, after reviewing your comment, I still think my edits were good, but I'm open to thoughts if you disagree; see below.)) (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I added the speech quote in both McIver's article and the speech article (it belonged in both places), but the fact that McIver is (or was?) a Democrat only belongs in McIver's article, as we don't need all that detail in the speech article. All is well, and the edits pass my last review, and, I hope, you concur, but if not, please speak up. :) Thx, (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: I need your help here[edit]

Dear MalanieN, I need your help, here, since my final edits (which we both seem to think are balanced and OK) are not able to be added to this "semi" protected page. Thank you for your assistance. (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

2nd UPDATE: a Holy War edit war has begun: Need help[edit]

Viz: this 'diff' - The edit was is just with one other editor, and so it is in the early stages: He or she offered no explanation, so maybe we can talk this out: I need your help, if you would not mind. Thx, (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you have taken the war to the talk page, as you should. Discuss it and let consensus rule. I added my own comments there. You seem to think that I am in agreement with you that the "it's her fault" statement should be in all three articles. I actually don't agree. I was just not going to delete it again after you toned it down. But if it were up to me, I would not include that AP reporter's interpretation of what McIver said anywhere. I would just go with what McIver herself said. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I am what you might call an "inclusionist," and wish to include all relevant sides and facts, but, yes, it is not the most important thing. Balance and Moderation in all things - INCLUDING balance & moderation.~ (That's a joke, because if sometimes we're "moderate" in using moderation, then sometimes we do go to extremes - both humourous and also, occasionally necessary, but I diverge. Again, thx for your help, even if you had a slightly different view on things. Your contributions seemed positive. (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


Thanks very much for the help. When two people say it, it goes better --- & perhaps i was too abrupt. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: Glad you didn't mind my chiming in. The user seems to have taken both of our comments with good will. I have a particular dislike of insta-tagging - tagging something for deletion just minutes after it was created - so that was why I commented. I later was pointed to Template:uw-hasty which I may use in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


So Linfield are the first team qualified for 2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League. I'd like to see it restored, but i guess putting it in user space until there are more teams, or the final stadium announced would be ok too. Could you do that? thanks. --Koppapa (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You got it. It's at User:Koppapa/2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League. If you want, you could let me know when you are ready to move it to mainspace, so that I can add a note on the talk page certifying that it is significantly different from the deleted article and not subject to WP:G4 speedy deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy[edit]

Hello. I don't know who you are, but do you typically rewrite articles to say the exact opposite of what the source says? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Restoring content[edit]

Melanie, Would the same rationale for this be applicable here?CFredkin (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I have reverted it, citing Discretionary Sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53[edit]

Hi, you previously contributed to a deletion discussion for London bus route 391, another similar deletion discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53 which you may wish to give your input on.

Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.

Thanks for your time. Jeni (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)