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#Requested move was closed as "No move".

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

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

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

December 2013-February 2014: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington? . Closed as "no consensus to change existing practice (that is, USPLACE)."

January-February 2014: Associated proposal for a moratorium on USPLACE discussions. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions. Closed as "There is a one year moratorium on changing the policy at WP:USPLACE unless someone can offer a reason that has not been discussed previously."

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Cully[edit]

You did not delete Ewart Potgieter because there was no AfD notice and therefore the nomination was improper. I put the AfD notice on June 18th and it was removed June 30th by an IP editior. Usually when this happens bots put if back but in any case I think Ewart Potgieter should also have been deleted. The nomination was proper and consensus was clear.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't pick that up in the history. (It would help if you would use an edit summary when you nominate something for deletion.) You are right, the AfD notice was in place for two weeks, that is more than enough to satisfy procedure, and the consensus at the AfD was clear. I will modify my AfD closure and delete the article. --MelanieN (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I see that the article had been created and speedy-deleted twice previously, so I salted it as well. --MelanieN (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and you are right - I should be more careful with edit summary when I do nominate. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Snap, crackle, and pop[edit]

Just letting you know, I undeleted pop (motion), which you'd speedied as a hoax, and re-opened its AfD. I came across it in the science delsort list and recognized the terminology. It's not actually a hoax, just physicists with a lame sense of humor. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that, Opabinia! I did wonder, because I am aware of the whimsical nature of some scientific names. (What are the quarks - up, down, charmed, and strange?) Of course the same sense of humor that produces such names can also produce clever hoaxes/jokes. The thing that convinced me it wasn't real was that we have no article on Crackle (motion). Should we? Anyhow thanks for having my back. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you delete that article without checking the references first? ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I admit I didn't give the references the respect I should have. The first reference doesn't load for me, and the second just didn't register. The names do seem absurd on their face, and the fact that Snap and Crackle don't have articles (and never did) weighed heavily with me. But I should have been more suspicious, because I am aware that physicists occasionally do come up with crazy names like this. Basically I just screwed up, and I apologize. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Entry on "Bridgenex[edit]

Hi there. I was wondering if it would be possible to have the "Bridgenex" page restored as it has been recently deleted. I would like to improve it and make it comply with Wikipedia's standards. Thanks! schiappetta (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, schippetta, and thanks for your note. I can do that, but I have to warn you that the article needs a LOT of work. Please read WP:CORP to understand what is needed for a company to have an article here. The first requirement is that the company has to have been written about, in detail, by independent reliable sources. There must be references, showing that independent reliable sources thought the company was important enough to write about in detail. Right now the only reference listed is the company's website; that's OK for a few things, but there must be independent sources or the article will not be accepted. Information from those sources must have a reference, cited in the text. To learn how to do this, see WP:Referencing for beginners. I have to warn you that I personally doubt that such a small company will ever meet the requirements. In a quick search of Google News I found nothing at all about Bridgenex.
Another requirement is that the article must be neutral, not promotional. For example, the detailed descriptions of the company's services are too promotional and need to be trimmed way back.
Another is that the article must be in your own words, not copied even in part from any other source.
One other point: I see that most of your editing here has been about this company and its founder. If you have a conflict of interest - for example, if you work for the company or have been hired to write about it - you must disclose that fact on your user page. Please read WP:COI. Wikipedia allows paid editing, but only if it is neutral (not advocacy or promotion), and only if the COI is disclosed.
Do you still want to try to improve the article after considering these things? If so, I will restore the article to your own private userspace so you can work on where it won't get immediately deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for including those points. Yes I would really appreciate if you could restore it to my own private userspace. --schiappetta (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
OK. You'll find it at User:Schiappetta/Bridgenex. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Rimstock Plc.[edit]

Hey MelanieN, hope your ok! I wrote a page about Rimstock Plc. which was put forward for speedy deletion and sadly deleted. It was my first page so have now researched the art of wiki writing and and going to be creating a new one in sandbox. I wondered if there is a record of my deleted article anywhere that i can reference from? I have checked the deletion logs with no luck so wondered if you could help?

Thankyou!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logthelife (talkcontribs) 12:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Logthelife. Yes, I deleted that article last week. I can restore it for you. Here is what is needed for the company to have an article here: WP:CORP. The most important requirement is that the company has to have been written about, in detail, by independent reliable sources. There must be references, showing that independent reliable sources think the company is important enough to write about in detail. Information from those sources must have a reference, cited in the text. To learn how to do this, see WP:Referencing for beginners. Also, the article was tagged as promotional; there was way too much description of and praise for individual products and services. The article must be neutral, factual, and not give too much emphasis on product details. About the name: It looks [2] as if Plc should not have a period after it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC
OK, it is restored to your own userspace. You can find it here: User:Logthelife/Rimstock Plc. There you can work on it at your leisure; since it is not in the main encyclopedia it will not get deleted (unless you do a no-no like copy-pasting from some other source; Wikipedia is very strict that the article must be in your own words). Good luck with the article! --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logthelife (talkcontribs) 14:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on Ramadan[edit]

I had attempted to discuss this change with the user here and was ignored. I apologise for getting to three reverts, it is not characteristic of me. Ogress smash! 20:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I was sure you know better, and I hated to template you. But I wanted to remind you, especially because EW noticeboard complaints can easily boomerang. If you don't revert them, have faith that someone else will. Of course it is moot now that the article is semi-protected. --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine being templated. It was an accident on my part because I've been distracted by a series of aggressive users, I legit forgot. Unrelatedly, I was wondering if you could tell me if I'm being crazy: this user managed not only to edit in an incredibly suspicious sockpuppet-y way (new account creates user page, talk page, then goes immediately to vote on the most obscure MfD ever created, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian), but when I note {{SPA}} here, it is reverted by Alakzi as "abrasive", who actually thanked 87504325340295a for his (remarkably well-worded) edit.
Note I agree with 87504325340295a's DELETE vote! I think it's a terrible article and should be removed. But this is super unlikely. And Alakzi has not responded to two messages on his page despite instant-reverting my edits. Ogress smash! 21:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Very strange. The user is certainly not new (how many new users add a {{citation needed}} tag as their first edit?), but unless you have some kind of evidence about who the sockmaster might be, I would let that go. However, tagging an SPA as an SPA is certainly not abrasive or disruptive; it is merely information for the use of the closing admin. I tag SPAs in deletion discussions all the time. You can quote me. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Nor did I suggest they were a sock on the page; I literally just added SPA. Ogress smash! 21:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why you find it so surprising that I thanked them; they expressed an informed opinion and they did so eloquently. It's also not the first newly-registered user with a clue whom I've welcomed, and Rob has been very productive so far. As for the use of {{Spa}}, I replied on my talk page. It's not OK to revert "because an admin said so". Alakzi (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Alakzi, thanks for joining the conversation. Could I ask why you removed an SPA tag? I have literally never heard of anyone doing that; tagging SPAs is one of the most routine and uncontroversial things you can do at a deletion discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
{{Spa}} should be used on people who are likely to have been canvassed or have got a conflict of interest; it's not a "shoo the newcomer because I've got a suspicion I can't quite place" tag. The instructions state, "Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a sure sign of sock puppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead". Alakzi (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't do it because they are suspicious; I did it because they are a SPA. I mentioned that they were suspicious in case perhaps you knew some information about why they were apparently deeply fluent in WP despite being a new user, like "oh yeah, this is a name change" or "this is a fresh start user" or something. The issues are tangentially related, not causally. Ogress smash! 22:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, the tag's not meant to be used on all apparent SPAs indiscriminately. What purpose would that serve? Alakzi (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
So, are you going to reply or revert, or are you comfortable with having got the admin's nod of approval? Edit warring is OK so long as an admin's got your back, I suppose. Alakzi (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I was unaware we had come to any sort of conclusion, or that I was required to revert myself because you object to my tagging. Ogress smash! 00:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh right, yeah, the correct response to someone objecting to your edit is to simply ignore their objections. Does logic work with anybody on this site, or should I just give up? Alakzi (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't ignoring your objections, I disagree with them. Currently our argument is: I think it is an appropriate use of the tag, you do not. How would you like to proceed? Ogress smash! 00:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, hold it. This is my talk page and I don't like fistfights on it. I am temporarily away from my computer and can only use my phone. But I want this argument to stop. Alakzi, two points: first, tagging SPAs is routine whether you like it or not. And second, removing other people's comments from a talk page is a no-no in most cases. Now go squabble somewhere else. Or better yet, drop it and go write an encyclopedia. MelanieN alt (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

An SPA tag is "people's comments"? Congratulations on losing all credibility. Alakzi (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Addanki sridhar Babu page[edit]

hi , i want to start the page addanki sridhar babu which was deleted ..I have collected more references and citations, and I don't want to do the same mistakes which I have done earlier ..I will complete the article first in the sandbox .. I will show you for your review then I will take it to the mainstream ..please do provide how to recreate the talk page swaroop 11:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakthi swaroop (talkcontribs)

Hello, Sakthi swaroop, and thanks for your note! The administrator who deleted the article Addanki sridhar babu was User:RHaworth. You should talk to them if you want to have the page restored and put in your sandbox. When you recreate the article be sure to use capital letters for the person's name: Addanki Sridhar Babu. Good luck with the article. Oh, and when you write a note on a talk page, be sure to sign it. You can sign it by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of the note, or put your cursor at the end and click on the button above the edit window that looks like a signature. When you do that, Wikipedia will automatically add your signature and a date/time stamp, like this: --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Christian Lee Hutson[edit]


I saw that an original page for Christian Lee Hutson was created, then deleted as he was termed a "non-notable musician" and it was too soon for him to have a page. The original entry was poorly cited and did not feature all his available sources, so I attempted to make a new one, which was speedily deleted for being a repeat (I did not yet understand this facet of Wikipedia creation). I was wondering if there was a way to revisit the deletion of the first page with the additional sources and material I have found.

Thanks! Shmeebsie (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Shmeebsie, and thanks for your note. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Lee Hutson left open the possibility that there could be additional references to improve his notability, or that he could become more notable as his career develops. You are welcome to try to demonstrate this. However, I would suggest that you create the new page, not in the encyclopedia itself (where it is likely to get deleted again), but in a draft space or a user-space of your own. There you can develop the article at your leisure, and it will not be deleted (as long as you don't do any no-nos like copy-pasting from another source; Wikipedia is very strict about that, it must be in your own words). Before you put it into the encyclopedia you can ask me to take a look at it and advise you if it is different enough from the original article, and if it might now meet the requirements of WP:MUSICIAN. Actually I see that you have already created the draft. Do you want me to look at it, or do you need more time and information to develop it? --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Dead stuff[edit]

I've only had a casual interest in the Grateful Dead, they're not very well known over here at all as they only toured a few times and never had any hits, but I like digging out old obscure bands and I believe they're a national treasure especially around the Bay area in California. Pigpen seems the easiest to improve, somebody asked me to help on Brent Mydland ages ago where I concluded it was not far off GA except there were no sources. Of course the most important band article to improve has to be Jerry Garcia, which is a bit of a minefield. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That's because you're on that side of the pond. I live in California and here they are/were ENORMOUS. I have a couple of relatives who were Deadheads - not fanatics, but fans. They even did volunteer roadie work at a few concerts. After Jerry Garcia died they mourned for a while, then became fans of Phish - but never to the same extent, the Deadheads were truly devoted. Umm, about "not far off GA except there were no sources" - how much further off from GA can an article be? --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't remember where the conversation was, but from a reader‍‍ '​‍s point of view, Brent's article was pretty good, reasonably well written and I learned quite a bit from it. So in terms of prose, neutrality, coverage and focus its okay. Just absolutely none of it is cited to sources so I've no idea if any of it's true or not. Now I've found some Dead books I may see if I can retro-source it.
As far as popularity goes, one guy down the end of the office recognises the name Jerry Garcia (he's an amateur guitarist), nobody else has ever heard of them. I've played in great Dead-style jam sessions in my time and they're fun, but the audience is quite limited. And crikey, hasn't Bob Weir really let himself go? He's gone from being easily the best looking guy in the band to someone you wouldn't want to meet in the middle of nowhere in case he was armed with a 12 bore or something. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Cherry who?
Two countries separated by a common language, an ocean, and apparently a large gulf in popular taste. Nobody heard of Jerry Garcia? Here he is so well known that Ben & Jerry's have an ice cream flavor named for him. The Dead were never a mainstream hit here, but at least everybody knew who they were. On the other hand, I daresay that nobody here has heard of whoever your current superstars are (revealing my own ignorance of same). Are little girls there as crazy about "Frozen" as they are here? Oh, and based on his pic on Wikipedia, I would say that Bob Weir isn't bad looking for his age. Nowhere near as scary as, say, Mick Jagger. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oy Frame, 'ows this one go again? Oh yeah, der ner ner duh de duh de duh de duh de duh ... of course
Don't ask me about new stuff, I haven't bought a mainstream album since Amy Winehouse. People probably have some vague idea about the Dead and particularly Garcia, but not much of an idea of what they do and what the music's like - it's hard for me to say because I've had some Dead albums for about 25 years, so I know all about them. I think we have a reverse equivalent - Status Quo. I don't believe they've had a US hit of any significance, and barely toured there if at all, but there are a national treasure in the UK and if you put this on a jukebox in a pub and turn the volume up, everyone will sing along drunkenly, playing air guitar. The irony of course is the song was written and first recorded by an American. John "Spud" Coughlan is still playing with tribute bands and I've gigged with Matt Letley's brother Mark a few times. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, you're right, I haven't heard of Status Quo, but clearly I should have. But they aren't really comparable to the Dead - because Status Quo was a major hit band, while the Dead were always more of a cult band and it was all about the live concerts. I don't think their stuff ever charted, or not significantly. And if you asked most people here to name (much less sing) a song by the Dead, they probably couldn't. If you want to get people singing along here, your best bet is probably The Beach Boys. Yes, even after all these years. You absolutely can't hear Help Me, Rhonda or Good Vibrations without singing along. BTW I think you meant this guy, not this guy. 0;-D Completely off topic, I'm going to be AFK for a week or two, starting next week; could you keep an eye on my talk page and maybe deal with anything that comes up? Any stalkers reading this, same request to you, if you please. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. No wonder people sing along with that song! I was singing along and I don't even know it! --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Melanie - I've added a reference to LTIR on the Insolvency Law in Canada page. Should I re-create the LTIR page that you deleted? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JarretA (talkcontribs) 18:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not unless you can overcome the objections at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LTIR. LTIR appeared to be a term that isn't even in use yet. There need to be multiple reliable sources accepting this acronym or name, using it, writing significantly about it. If you can't cite such sources, it will be a frustrating waste of time for you to recreate it. See WP:G4. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club: Season 14[edit]

Since the season is labeled "Back For More", I thought it would be appropriate to write that in the title. For example, the thirteenth season is called Redemption. SalemCrow101 (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there something you are asking me to do about this article? --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I mean if you could unlock the page, maybe I could show you? But if not, I'm talking about changing the first word in the article: "Bad Girls Club: Back For More" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalemCrow101 (talkcontribs) 19:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I can see that the title is referenced and that is how previous series have been titled, so I changed it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted article[edit]

Hi - an article I wrote was recently deleted under speedy deletion. Looking at the comments, I see why and would like to modify the article. Could I have it restored to my user space so I can work on it further? Thanks -

PuzzleMe82 (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, PuzzleMe82, and thanks for your note. If you'll tell me the title of your article I will check it out. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Only Warning"?[edit]

Surely this is an instant indef block situation here? (Wont link to the user in question due to their insulting username) Bosstopher (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

They are reported at UAA right now for their offensive username, and every edit of theirs has been blocked as a Personal Attack and has been revdel'ed, so you are probably right. A warning was definitely erring on the side of caution. But for now they have stopped posting. Their username is something I'll leave for another admin to handle. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with OP. If you cannot use Admin powers in an obvious case like that you have seriously questionable judgement. The user name warranted an immediate block. Leaky Caldron 18:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:HJ Mitchell[edit]

Might need to null edit it and revdel the last edit summary to entirely remove the name. Amortias (T)(C) 18:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Done, as much as I can. The system won't let me add "edit summary" to the edits previously revdel'ed by other admins. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you got em all, cheers. Amortias (T)(C) 19:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove web extension from blacklist[edit]

Hello Melanie - I was wondering if you could help us remove a web extension from the blacklist. Our concern is that there is a wiki editor somewhere who is practicing favoritism .I brought this up another wiki editor who threatened to ban my editing privileges if I accuse any wiki editors of this; however, his threat is absurd because how can anybody assure another that their fellow human being is without bias? These are gestapo tactics and they will never deter us from researching how is not being currently considered as a valid news source when sites like and are. arguably does more interviews, album reviews, exclusive premieres and publishes way more original content then either of those sites. Our goal it to get the site whitelisted. Can you please assist? Robzwop (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I can't help you. I have nothing to do with any blacklist. I will post the rest of my comments on your talk page, since I see that you have posted similar notes on a dozen people's talk pages, and we might as well have one central place to reply. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Quebec telemarketing yet again[edit]

See Quebec Telemarketing Firm. More salt needed, when you're back from vacation. PamD 21:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

They never give up, do they? I think I also saw Quebec Telemarketing (company) recently. I don't have access to my tools here. Hey, User:Ritchie333 or User:NeilN or somebody - would you mind salting this title? It's been created a dozen times under slight variations. Thanks. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you - what a nice surprise! MelanieN alt (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jon Stewart[edit]

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

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

@Impartial Scholar: As I keep telling you - the place to discuss this is the talk page of the article, Talk:Jon Stewart. Posting notes on the talk pages of individual editors is not going to help. Here's how things work here: material used at Wikipedia has to be neutral. It has to be verifiable based on independent reliable sources. And it has to be important enough to include. These rules are interpreted by the community through consensus; consensus is developed by discussion at the talk page. For now, several different people have removed the Fox News comments, suggesting that the current consensus is not to include them. You are free to argue your case for including them, and maybe you will get the consensus to agree with you. But the place to develop that consensus is at the article's talk page. You must NOT keep re-adding it; that is the very definition of an edit war. Edit warring is a no-no here, regardless of who is "right".
By the way, when you post on a talk page you should sign your comment. The way to do that is to add four tildes, like this ~~~~, which will automatically generate your signature and a date/time stamp. You can find the tildes as the capital of the key to the left of "1", right under the "escape" key. Even easier, you can put your cursor at the end of your comments and then click on the signature button. It's in that row of buttons above the editing window, and it looks like a signature. Here's what I get when I do that: --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


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

LOL, usually YOU are the bold one and I am the timid one! Before I full-protect I always try to revert to the last stable version (but of course that is impossible because it violates the rule at WP:WRONG). I also scolded them on the article's talk page and posted 3RR warnings to several of them. We'll see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Requesting re-instatement of the indefinite semi-protection following the recent expiration of full protection. Thanks. --Peaceworld 15:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see that the article has required semiprotection almost continuously, so I will reinstate it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi Melanie - hope all's well.

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

Thanks for the note, Dohn joe. Let's do this: go ahead and re-open the discussion, if you like, but let's leave the move the way it is for now. If you want I can come to the discussion and explain what I did. If consensus develops to go back to the previous situation, or to some third situation, I'll do or undo the moves then. But for now it won't hurt anything to leave them moved. Fair enough? --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure. The only thing I'd ask is that if the final answer is "no consensus" that we return to where things had been. Thanks Melanie. Dohn joe (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. I inserted an explanation of the history and the current situation (please correct me if I got anything wrong), and I added an area for new discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with article Utigurs[edit]


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

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

Hello, and thanks for your note. I really can't help you with this article. If I semi-protect it, as I did before, the result will be to ban YOU from editing the article - while leaving the registered users free to edit. I don't think that's what you want. This is basically a content dispute, with you presenting ideas and sources that the other users don't accept. Wikipedia works by WP:Consensus, and if you are the only one presenting your ideas, with multiple other people opposing, your ideas are simply not going to be in the article. Presenting your argument to me won't help you; I am not familiar enough with this field to take part in the discussion.
You have made a good start by posting at the article's talk page; that's the first step. People are reasonable, and they will listen to and evaluate your point of view. If you have no luck there, you could ask for help at WT:WikiProject Bulgaria or WT:WikiProject Central Asia. But be warned: if "most scholars" believe something and you believe something different, Wikipedia is going to accept the position of "most scholars". Wikipedia may or may not accept the results of a single scientific paper; it depends on the credentials of the author, how often the paper is cited, and similar considerations. Wikipedia mostly reflects the mainstream consensus of scholars; it may or may not present minority views depending on how much support there is for them. See WP:GREATWRONGS. And be careful not to edit war; you can get blocked for edit warring even if you are sure you are right. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
MelanieN, you answered to him very well, but believe me, if he is who I assume to be, he already heard this from me and other editors, but he won't listen. I am not surprised he contacted you as the user I assume is related to already done a similar thing. The article is in horrible shape, most of the claims the IP stated are not generally accepted and they need to be written according their weight (NPOV), or are totally incorrect (weren't Huns). The template must be there for the readers sake. I'm currently writing the new revision of the article, probably will post it today or tomorrow, and you will see what reliable and mainstream (not outdated and very minor) scholars consider on Utigurs. Note that the IP '' has almost the same behaviour, POV, editing and use of sources as '', and recently blocked '' (removed template and wrote an improper comment on my talk page) and User:PavelStaykov. --Crovata (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

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


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

OK, sorry. There was no discussion at the Ahmadiyya talk page. If you ask for protection of a page again, maybe you could put a note on its talk page, cross-referencing the other discussion - just to show that discussion is going on somewhere. I must say, though, that the discussion there isn't very convincing - because it is all just assertion, no links or evidence. "I say this." "No, I say that". If you could find any kind of reliable source saying the term is offensive, that would help a lot. As it is, you are saying it is offensive "because I say so", vs. the other side being able to cite the government of Pakistan as a source. You point out that the Pakistani government disapproves of the group, but that doesn't show that the term itself is offensive. Please understand, I'm not disagreeing with you or disbelieving you. I'm just saying that in a content dispute, the viewpoint that Wikipedia accepts is the viewpoint that has references to support it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I see now that the Qadiani article does have a reference supporting the idea that the term "shows contempt". I don't know if it is a Reliable Source but it is at least a reference. If you would cite that reference whenever you get into these arguments about the term, it would help a lot. A possible compromise, at articles like Ahmadiyya, could be to say something like "Ahmadi Muslims are sometimes called "Qadiani", for example by the government of Pakistani, but the Ahmadis themselves find the term to be offensive." I see that Sakimonk put a sentence very much like that - "Although considered a slur" - into the Ahmadiyya article; are you OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
No need to be sorry. It's probably my fault. I tend to assume that admins and editors are aware of the context of the discussion. Besides that source, there is another RS by Human Rights Watch already provided by another editor. I think there is a difference between saying that "Ahmadis themselves find the term offensive" to saying that "the term is offensive", and it is the latter case according to sources. I don't believe that offensive terms have a place in articles, and particularly the lede, unless the discussion on the articles is concerning the actual term. The term has been mentioned in the context of a deplorable law (which I have discussed at Talk:Qadiani) strongly condemned by human rights orgs. [Edit:The point of discussion was to show that Pakistan government source isn't a reliable source for the identity of a group]--Peaceworld 15:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
tagging Sakimonk for a fairer outlook.--Peaceworld 15:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, but this discussion really needs to be at Talk:Ahmadiyya rather than here. If it isn't there, then "admins and editors" are NOT aware of the context of the dispute - and they can't be expected to find it here. (Remember than when you ask for help, at RFPP or dispute resolution or wherever, your request will almost certainly be handled by a person who knows little or nothing about the subject at hand.) I suggest you start a section at Talk:Ahmadiyya, outlining your position and sources, and stating specifically what you want to change in the article - and invite Sakimonk to discuss it there. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
sure.--Peaceworld 15:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Just to add one comment, with my interpretation of Wikipedia policy: WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Depending on context we may use words that are offensive to some. If a term is generally regarded as a racial or religious slur, we would not use it in Wikipedia's voice; thus, we would not show it as a synonym for the non-offensive term. If it is regarded as a slur but is used by a major source such as a national government, we should probably note both of those facts, together, somewhere in the article. That's pretty much what the existing sentence "Although considered a slur, the term qadiani is widely used in Pakistan and is the official term used by the government.[8]" does. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
This fact belongs to the section Ahmadiyya#Persecution#Pakistan and not the lede.--Peaceworld 16:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Then say so in your comment at Talk:Ahmadiyya, where you are currently calling for the sentence to be removed. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
...with a bit of difference, "Although considered a slur, the term qadiani is widely used in Pakistan and is the official term used by the government".--Peaceworld 16:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

National Grand Lodge[edit]

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

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

An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{1}}}|deletion review]] of [[:{{{1}}}]]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 12 and the subject is "Associated RC10". --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Aww... and here I was, hoping this was some article about a fascinating new emoticon, and it turns out just to be a wikitext snafu? Sigh. (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Thanks for approving the semi-protecting for Shila Amzah page! Really appreciated it :) Aiman851 (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. The protection was needed. The unwanted edits were not just unsourced; they were violations of our WP:BLP policy. Let me know if the problem recurs And thanks for the strawberries! --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wonder if you might rethink Jean Dadario Burke?[edit]

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

@Tomwsulcer: Thanks for your note. The consensus at the discussion was pretty clear, and the !voters are credible people who did suggest they had done research. But if you like, I can userfy it to you, so you can add sources and improve the article. Before resubmitting it you should probably ask me to take a look and compare it to the deleted article, so that I can certify that it is significantly different; otherwise it will likely get speedy deleted per WP:G4. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@MelanieN:, Thanks for being open-minded. How about this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
You've got it covered already! If you want to use that to create a new article, I'll put a note on the talk page saying that it is significantly different from the deleted article. Let me know when it's live. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok live here. Hope she survives, methinks she deserves it, hope you think similarly...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

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

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


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

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

Braun and something else[edit]

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

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

Harry Braun got the Message[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Reference errors on 20 August[edit]

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

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

SPI assistance[edit]

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

Looks like it's all resolved for now. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 11:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the note. You caught me offline. (Yes, I do sleep sometimes.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

User:FreeatlastChitchat, I'm sorry to see that edit warring has erupted again. But full protection is normally used only for very short periods, like a few days - usually to stop an active edit war in the hopes that the parties will talk. This seems more like a slow motion disagreement, with some discussion going on. At this point, I do not see so hot an edit war as to need full protection. Anyhow, I am not qualified to overrule all the participants and determine what the article should say over the long term. That is done among discussants at the talk page. The main rule is that anything contentious needs to have a reference supporting it. If there is no reference for a given statement or claim, and some people challenge it, it should probably not be in the article. If somebody insists on adding unsourced information which does not have consensus, the person could be reported to WP:3RR. Be aware that if the edit warring is a two-way reversion battle between two parties, both parties may end up blocked at 3RR. Edit warring is considered bad in itself, no matter who is "right" or "wrong". Sorry I couldn't be more help. (P.S. Looking at the history, I see that you are the one who is trying to add unsourced information. If I were to fully protect the article, it would be a version that does NOT include the sentence you are trying to add.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The two "mujaddids" of the fourteenth century are both extremist and heretical sectarianists who are rejected by the majority of sunni muslims. The rest of the actual mujaddids are all removed from the list because for some reason my edits are censored. Why is this? My version lists every single school of thought and is fully sourced and it is the most accurate. The current one is a POV car crash and embarrassing to even look at. Shame on you admin User:MelanieN for enabling such an abuse of the WP:BRD and violating WP:NPOV guidelines.Sakimonk talk 21:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
MelanieN Thanks for pointing out the lack of sources. I have inserted them now.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Please take note of sectarian attack on Mujadid page which needs to be stopped. The comments made by Sakimonk displays his personal hatred towards these movements. In this situation he can't be expected to edit with neutral point of view. His language constitute violation of WP:Civil. Kindly take note of further vandalism by this editor. ScholarM (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have locked the page for three days and given advice on the talk page. Basically, you all need to stop editing based on your personal beliefs, and start editing based on what neutral reliable sources say. We require NEUTRAL sources - not adoring descriptions of a person written by his admirers, and not attacks on one sect of a religion written by another sect of the religion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for stopping edit Warring at Mujadid page. ScholarM (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, but it's the wrong barnstar. I didn't see any vandalism there - just strong differences of opinion. If we will all show respect for each other, I believe it will be possible to work out compromise language that everyone can accept. That's what the "page lock" is for, and that's what the talk page is for. --MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for your note, and sorry if you were offended by my striking through the word "delete". The problem is just that you shouldn't add a bolded "delete" at the start of your second and later comments. There is no problem with the comment itself; as you say, it is a discussion, not a vote. As I said at the AfD page, You are free to comment as much as you like, but please precede your second and later comments with something like Comment rather than repeating "delete". Among other reasons, if you cast more than one bolded "vote", it confuses the bot that archives these discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Honestly, I didnt know there was any other choices besides delete or keep. I also made editions that were lost when I hit save because I don't like the way my comment could be interpreted. So, sorry about that on my part. I was adding that on each re-list new points were made and I had added that my particular stance hadn't changed. Well Im glad you shared that. If I ever participate in a discussion like this and had previously added "delete" Ill add "comment". Thats when wikipedia can be really great, is when through discussion a person can learn things like even nuances. That was a cool experience doing this with you here, have a nice day. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. There's a lot to learn around here, isn't there? But it's worth sticking around and learning. Wikipedia editing can be an interesting hobby. If you have questions in the future, feel free to ask. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There definitely is. It is worth it. I will probably do just that. I really appreciate the sentiment. I already have one thing I would ask about someone who wrote something derogatory about a known gay musician, implying they hooked up with young people. I think it should be brought to an administrators attention because its completely like nothing Ive ever seen here since mid 2000s. Im not sure if this is the place though. So maybe I wouldn't bother you with it. Im not sure. Either way have a great day, and Thank you.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If you want to tell me the name of the article, I'll take a look at it. Wikipedia has very firm policies on articles about living people, see WP:BLP. If you don't want to post the name of the article here for whatever reason, you can email it to me. Just click "email this user" on the Tools menu on the left. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Thx for the speedy deletion of my user page

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

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

Restoring Catalyst Pharmaceuticals page[edit]

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

@Mastermindful: That is exactly the kind of thing - significant coverage from an independent reliable source - that people found lacking at the Afd discussion. I can't guarantee that it will be considered ENOUGH coverage, but it's worth trying. I will restore the article as a draft in your userspace. That will give you leisure to cite and add the new source and any others you have. When you have a draft article ready, let me take a look at it. If it is significantly different/better than the deleted article, I will move it to articlespace and post a note on the talk page saying it is significantly different. If the article is put into articlespace without a prior review, it is likely to get tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The article is here: User:Mastermindful/Catalyst Pharmaceuticals I suggest you redo your reference citations into a more standard format before resubmitting the article. See Help:Referencing for beginners. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Power[edit]

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

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

They are back[edit]

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

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg
Hello, MelanieN. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 10:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't recall whether or not I've sent you an invite before, so here you go. Check out the project! North America1000 10:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks but no thanks. Not my thing. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigma Alpha Pi[edit]

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

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