User talk:MelanieN/Archive 10

Ridiculously small GAs

Hiya, remember that conversation we had about stub size articles being nominated for GA? Looks like someone's at it again at M-132 (Michigan highway), a 1.1K stub article containing (imho) zero reliable and independent sources. I mean Ann Arbor is a nice place to hang out, but still.... and I thought Snake Pass was a bit small for a GA at 8K. Rather than coming down like a ton of bricks, I thought I'd ask a friendly admin for advice first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that. I don't think adminship has anything to do with GA, and I am not an GA reviewer myself. What I would suggest is to quickfail the article yourself. And if there is a pattern of that editor (Imizadi1979) making bad nominations, maybe to say something on their talk page. No bricks necessary, but maybe just a summary of some of the GA requirements. If this is a one-shot nomination I'd quickfail it, explain why, and let it go. --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I changed my mind about this. See email for discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Leaving it be does sound like the better option. After all, I created Pink cat and took it to DYK, so me complaining about other articles is the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I too have ridiculously small GAs but I am undergoing a course of hormone therapy. I go every wednesday. I hope this helps. Irondome (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Irondome, just remember - it's what you do with it that counts! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't generally come across such articles but if I ever found any that sort of case, I would go an nominate them for AFD after doing WP:BEFORE. An article with no reliable source and independent coverage, questions notability of the subject. Although I think there is no clear consensus but imo non notable subjects up for GAN are valid for 'quickfail'. Cheers, Jim Carter 05:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles about roads and highways seem to have some different standards - for example I think they use certain types of maps as a Reliable Source. And there is some kind of "presumed notable" standard for major government roads - I'm not sure what levels of government but it's probably written down somewhere. By the way, Happy April Fool's Day, and don't believe everything you read. --MelanieN (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why notability being a prerequisite for GAs is such a hoo ha - look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name - but it is. I have used maps myself as sources occasionally, to verify the existence of a historic building or structure at some point in time. But you can't use a map as an independent source towards notability - the local OS 1:25,000 happily shows the corner shop at the end of my street, but that's not notable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

Not to seem unappreciative...

But if BLP policy is all about strict adherance was required, the protection means the article plainly misrepresents sources (in addition to failing to adhere to core content policy). See for example first two citations in "personal life". Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not taking sides in the edit war. I left the full version in place to facilitate discussion - so that everybody can see what exactly is being talked about, what information, what sources, without having to dig through the history. Also, since the expanded version is the one created by the author of the article, it is the "last stable version" before the edit war began. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, except facilitate the discussion of what exactly? The source does not say what is written there. At all. I don't know what else can be said to overcome that issue. An edit request has already been made now to overcome the protection in relation to that.

Even after the editor was warned repeatedly about violating various policies, no admin has issued a block against it. The BLP violations, 3RR violations and POV promotion remain for another few days, which is what the other editor desired all along anyway. That forces mentoring, but frankly, I'm not going to mentor that editor just because this community of uninvolved administrators won't deal with the problem editor and thereby enforce BLP policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue that you are in the right and the other person is wrong. There are already two discussion areas for that: the talk page of the article, and the discussion at AN3. There could be other areas, such as the BLP discussion board. If the problems are as blatant as you believe, surely you will be able to find someone who agrees with you. My role was and is simply to stop the edit warring - to prevent anyone (and that could include you) from getting blocked for 3RR. MelanieN alt (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved editor, I have looked through the article and sources and would like to nominate the page for deletion (or rather redirection to Airtel Super Singer Junior#Season 4). Can you let me know what would be the easiest way logistically to go about it given that the page is fully protected at the moment? Abecedare (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Looks like Euryalus has already taken care of it for you. I would rather leave the protection in place for the moment. --MelanieN (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The issues with the article are related to the notability of the subject and puffery; and not any BLP-claims that would harm a real-life individual. So protection while the AFD is open, and edit-warring is a potential issue, is fine with me. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice requested

Hi. Hope you're well. You're one of the most level-headed users I've ever come across so I thought you'd be best to ask. I've recently come across a user who is very reticient to changing articles around a certain subject area because he's a superfan of the subject. I really don't want to get into a conflict. When I look at previous history of the pages concerned it is clear, it's not something new but something other users have experienced as well. Here's an example of an article I changed mainly as it had POV issues: [[1]]. It was changed back to the user's preferred version. [[2]]. According to BRD, I would open a talk page discussions but I fear he will not listen due to his subconscious bias as he has done when previous users have tried to change his "pet" articles. What would be the best course of action? Cowlibob (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Thanks for your note and for the compliment. You are asking about two subject areas where I am very weak - movies and India - but I took a look and I'll give you some thoughts. You are right that the user is a major fan of this actress. However, their enthusiasm has not been found by Wikipedia to be out of line. On the contrary, the user has taken this actress's biography all the way to Featured Article and the article you linked to here to Featured List, and they have proposed still another article for Featured List (as you know because you commented there). So I think they need to be treated with respect (personally I have never gotten any article to Featured status). Here is how I see it: you did a major rewrite of the article, all in one edit. That's probably not the best way to approached a Featured Article or Featured List. Such articles have already been subjected to careful scrutiny by the community, and any changes should be incremental. Some of your changes were important (removing puffery like "blockbuster" and "major box office phenomenon"). Other changes were probably not vital. So I would do a few small edits, fixing just the important things, with a good edit summary explaining why. And I would discuss on the talk page which image to use. Bottom line advice: respect this editor as a passionate but competent Wikipedian; try to fix a few problems in the article; and don't sweat the small stuff. If they insist on retaining things like "major box office phenomenon", ask for a citation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I should note that although he is very beneficial in terms of expansion of these articles, the FA and FL were in my opinion only really possible because of the great assistance provided by veteran users to tone down the POV/generally counteract his abrasiveness in the articles to allow for promotion. [[3]], [[4]], [[5]] but I'll try to make a few small edits and see how it goes. Cowlibob (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, those are some interesting links all right. Still, I would take it slowly and incrementally just because it IS featured content. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ryn Weaver (deletion)

Please provide a valid reason for deleting the said page/subject. otherwise, please restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riot kiddo (talk • contribs) 05:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Riot kiddo: Thanks for your note. The article was deleted after a community discussion, which you can see here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryn Weaver. The consensus was that she does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article at this point in her career. For a singer, the requirements can be found here: WP:MUSICBIO. --MelanieN (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

You've been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ban_required_for_Merinsan.27s_destructive_editing. I messed up the ping, so am manually alerting you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent Deletion of Liquid112's page

Hey, is there anyway I can have a copy of the text that was on the page prior to deletion? I would like to make it a draft and submit it later, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImRespawn (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@ImRespawn: I have put a copy here: User:ImRespawn/LiQuiD112. That is your own userspace, so you can work on it at your leisure. One suggestion: when you are ready to move it back to the encyclopedia, I suggest that you title the article with his real name, Steve Arhancet, rather than his nickname. I think you will find more coverage (that is, more references) about him under his real name. About references: right now, all of your references are from Curse, which is the team sponsor and not an independent reliable source. You need to add references from outside sources. Here are some possible references: Forbes, MCV-UK, ongamers. Make the article more about HIM, the person. And you should probably eliminate the list of tournaments he played in - or at least trim it to the half dozen MOST significant ones. --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Biography Barnstar
		Nice work expanding the Huy Duc article, which you rescued from a speedy deletion nomination and improved to its present state. Keep up the good work! North America1000 14:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing! We do our admin work which often includes deleting articles, but it's nice to be able to rescue one now and then. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Request file move

Hi, Melanie! Hope you're well!

Not quite sure what's wrong with my fingers, but I uploaded File:Forte AGT audition.orgg.ogg. Can this be moved to simply File:Forte AGT audition.ogg? TIA. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done I did NOT leave a redirect, so anywhere you put this file, the name will have to be manually corrected. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Danke! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You're invited to a local meetup

You are likely already aware of this group, I just discovered it so I thought I would share. The event happened earlier today Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/April 2015 but looking forward to next event. @Rob talk 21:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob! I did know about it, but was unable to attend. Maybe next time. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Jordan Spieth

Hello,MelanieN.I'm from wiki in french and I'm not very good in English.Can you correct an error on Jordan Spieth. In "2015" ,it's written : On April 12,Speith.... Can you inverse the e and i please.This page is semi-protected and I have no contributions in wiki english.I'm from Montreal,Canada.Thank you very much.--Danielvis08 (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC) You can forget it,someone corrected it at 01:31, 2 minutes after my message.Thanks.--Danielvis08 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and for wanting to fix this. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Lev Goldentouch

Hi there, MelanieN,

Apropos speedy deletion A7 of my article Lev Goldentouch, I think notability applies as the person is a published author with multiple independent reviews. The person is [also] known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. I would like the article restored as there are many more articles of people with significantly lower credibility and it just feels like my article is being targeted unfairly due to biases some lower level editors have against some of the theories/field of work that the person in question is associated with. Please help! Suraj Sharma (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's my opinion, passing by this talk page. I took a look at the topic, and he seems to be a fellow who wrote a book or two about speed reading and learning. But I see no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources of him or his books that would make Goldentouch notable. Therefore, I believe that the deletion was correct. As for other articles of "significantly lower credibility", please mention them by name, and if you are right, they can be deleted as well. By the way, we don't discuss "credibility" much here. We evaluate the "notability" of topics and the "reliability" of sources discussing those topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Cullen; I agree. To User:Surajsharma, if there actually are multiple independent reviews of Lev Goldentouch or his work, that is exactly the kind of thing that would be needed to restore the article. But there were no independent reviews referenced in the article, and I couldn't find any in a search. Independent reviews have to come from WP:Reliable sources, meaning things like mainstream newspapers or scholarly journals - not blogs or Amazon reviews. I also searched Google Scholar and found no scholarly publications by him and no citations of his work by others. I know it can be frustrating when you work hard on an article and then it is found not to meed Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here. But I'm afraid that is the case with Lev Goldentouch. By the way, I see that the article was actually deleted twice in the same week, by two different administrators. Don't create it a third time unless there are really significant improvements in the article; if you do, the article could be "salted", which means it would be locked so that it cannot be created again. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Anya Camilleri‎ article

I've completed substantial research and revisions to the Anya Camilleri article, and would appreciate it greatly, if you could review and comment. Thanks. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Great work. I replied on Ritchie's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

At this rate, I think somebody will create a shortcut, WP:ARS2, that goes to my talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe ARS2 isn't the best possible shortcut? 0;-D But we probably do need some kind of shortcut. After all, you are the founder and president of the imaginary Heyman Society.--MelanieN (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy

Is the protection supposed to be three months or indefinite? --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I meant to do it for 3 months. Forgot to click a button. Thanks for catching it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up becoming indefinitely semi-protected; vandalism has been an issue for quite a while. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't either. Maybe that was a Freudian slip - making it indefinite, after I said I was going to do it for 3 months. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Snide remark?

Please understand a context at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton where inferences have been made of my "gaming", of me not being "helpful to process" and that I have not previously "agreed that the policies need to be read together". Now, in a thread with a heading where I only use the name Rodham, in a context where everywhere else I have seen HRC referred to as Clinton and when I have also made sympathetic edits like this, you then comment on my reference to "(Rodham) Clinton" in terms of a snide remark. Please, I really think that there has been enough drama on the page. I know that editors will generally find your instructive inputs of great help but please, there was nothing snide in my input. Unlike, I think many editors on the page, I am not contributing in a partisan way and the whole thread input was to try to develop guidelines based coherence in both sides of the argument so as to allow arguments, such as those of RGlouster (an editor with whom I have been in increasing conflict of late), to potentially have a rational platform.

Please consider reviewing your edit to keep the valued informative content but without the sharp edge. GregKaye 05:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended by my "snark" reference. Maybe you could explain what you meant by referring to "the (Rodham) Clinton camp"? I can only read that as meaning that you think she is trying to use "Rodham Clinton" as her last name. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly I had assumed that the Rodham Clinton format had echoes of the use of a Double-barrelled name but, while I have not considered this as an actual surname in the subject's case, the whole thing has been substantially on my mind recently. 11 days ago a family friend Mavis Hall Davis nee Hall died. If anything this situation in great life showed a great example of two people, with husband, Lynton Hall Davis nee Davis, who both gave a joint and consistent presentation of a joint identity. Oddly its not something I had considered in connection to HRC til today.

What I see is a person who, for perhaps understandable reasons, presents herself with or without reference to Rodham depending on circumstance and who doesn't seem to me have a CRN with Rodham included. I am open to the idea that the presentation of "(Rodham) Clinton" may have lacked tact in some way though I don't see how. There was nothing snide. GregKaye 21:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've been observing the enormously extensive discussions of the debate on Hillary's article title from a back seat (not posting on that page/article), and personally saw/see nothing snarky or snide in the configuration. It's hard to have these endless repetitive discussions without somehow eventually telegraphing one's meaning rather than spelling it out completely all over again. I believe Greg was simply telegraphing. I don't know if my observation helps; I don't know Greg or his editing or know the extent of his positions on the page; if anything, using that locution seems to be one of the milder things happening on that page. :-) -- Softlavender (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

So you seriously thought it might a kind of surname for her (as in "Rodham Clinton, Hillary")? To me that is so obviously not the case that I assumed you were doing it sarcastically, mocking her; hence my description of your usage as "possibly a little bit of snark"; OK, I will delete the "snark" reference. Far be it from me to add any more drama to that page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I said "I had assumed that the Rodham Clinton format had echoes of the use of a Double-barrelled name". I didn't assume it to be presented as a surname and I didn't assume that it didn't and I did not assume that this had any relevance to what I wrote. It is a name that retains reference to her family name and to her marriage partner and I just took that at face value. In the last RM 70% of editors who expressed a support/oppose opinion supported the move and yet now, when a move is proposed, no one seems to assume good faith. GregKaye 18:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Huy Duc

Allen3 ^talk 08:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The validity of unregistered users essay by CookieMonster755

Hi MelanieN! It's very good to be talking with you again. Hopefully I am not bothering you... I have been inspired to write an opinion essay for Wikipedia's featured newspaper column, The Signpost. This essay will be discussing primarily about the role of unregistered users (IPs) on Wikipedia, the facts and the opinions about the controversial internet users, and why IP addresses are harassed and/or judged differently than registered users. It will also discuss why not all IP addresses are here to vandalize Wikipedia, why they actually do play an important role on Wikipedia, and why they don't register as an official user. I want opinions from different perspectives, including Administrators, Rollbackers, Pending-Chaneges reviewers, Autoconfirmed users, and IP addresses themselves. I want to know what's the big deal about these mysterious internet users, and you are a perfect Administrator to express your opinion why IP addresses may not register, the harassment IP addresses may get from other users, and why IP addresses may play a good role on Wikipedia. I want to write a lot about your expense as an Administrator dealing with IP addresses and vandalism in my essay, and I really do hope you take apart in this essay, which may have a drastic change of viewpoints for all registered and unregistered users on Wikipedia. I look forward to discussing this important opportunity soon. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

CookieMonster, thanks for the invitation, but I'm going to pass. This is not a subject I have a lot of experience or expertise on, or one that I have strong feelings about. Good luck with your essay though! --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

SD

Hi Melanie, I didn't realize (or figure out) that you're from SD. I lived in Carlsbad from 1987-2001; fond memories. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's very cool, Rosie! I see from your userpage that you were teaching at a university here; which one? Do you ever work on San Diego articles now? --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A request

A request to my beloved talk page stalkers: I am about to take a two-week Wikibreak. I will have very little computer access during that time, and no access at all to the mop. So if anyone posts here and needs a reply, or some kind of action, please handle it for me, OK? Thanks much! --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)