User talk:MelanieN/Archive 29

Democratic Revolution

Can you help me out here? In Spanish, the party name is Revolución Democrática, so I 'm really stuck on what the article name should be when it's translated to English. Democratic Revolution is a really vague term within itself and shouldn't be associated with a foreign party; the foreign name would be more appropriate. Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄 ^{𐍄𐌀ℓК} 23:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a good question, Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄. It does appear to be our policy to give foreign party names in English translation - see List of political parties in Mexico for instance. I agree that "Democratic Revolution" is vague and not at all clear what is is. Most but not all political party articles here seem to include the word "Party", again as per the Mexico list and also per American groups like the Peace and Freedom Party and the American Independent Party. So it could be "Democratic Revolution Party"; there already is a Democratic Revolutionary Party but they are different enough for both to have articles. You could say "Democratic Revolution Party (Chile)" but that seems unnecessarily detailed - unnecessary disambiguation as they say. I'm going to ping another user, User:Born2cycle, who is an expert an article titles, and let's see what he says.--MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The main guiding principle is to follow usage in sources, which seems to be "Democratic Revolution". It doesn't matter that it's so vague that someone unfamiliar with the topic won't be able to identify the topic from the name - the name should reflect what reliable sources use to refer to the topic. If we use something else, then we create the misleading impression that that something else is what the topic is normally called. The only exception is if there are other uses of that name on WP, in which disambiguation is required, which apparently is not the case here. The current title, Democratic Revolution, is exactly right in my opinion. --В²C ☎ 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, you learn something new every day. :) Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄 ^{𐍄𐌀ℓК} 15:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames has some error in merging. Its contents were not merged. If its merged, it will be a mistake, as towns are included in it. So, please review and make some alternative attempt. I've accepted it, but upon having a glance at the merge process, I found this.--Vin09 (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The merge was carried out by User:Lemongirl942. If you feel there were errors in doing the merge, you could discuss it with her, or explain the problem by posting a note at Talk:List of cities in India by nicknames. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald J Trump Foundation

MelanieN

I appreciate the advice on structure and style on the Donald J. Trump Foundation page, as well as your general hard work on Wikipedia, my favorite source. Two questions on that front:

1. Am I not supposed to use inline links for external references? If so, should I add them in an external links section? 2. I used the extra level of sub-headings for clarity. I don't see how removing them helps. If this is a general preference of the Wikipedia community, then so it is. What I'd prefer, however, is that we leave the sub-headings in the larger body of the text but not have that third level of headings appear in the table of contents. If that's possible.

Also, for content, I disagree with your contention that I've added too many examples. Any single one of the examples I've included would, for another public figure, warrant an entire section. I've been very careful to include only examples that are sufficiently backed by evidence and are, according to quality sources cited, in clear violation of IRS rules, criminal law, and/or NYS law. I've gone out of my way to omit the dozens of other public allegations that have been made but are not supported with enough direct evidence.

Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.213.133 (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry -- signed it without being logged in... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteWL (talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Peter, and thanks for your note! I should have talked to you earlier; sorry about that. I have watched you expand the article over the past few months, and I have admired your thoroughness and your care with sources. However, I have been concerned about the increasingly negative tone of the article. I realize that's an unavoidable result of the coverage itself, which has mostly taken the form of exposés. I have occasionally modified language or trimmed material when I thought it went too far. However, recently a Did You Know reviewer expressed the same concern: that the article is not neutral. See Template:Did you know nominations/Donald J. Trump Foundation. My recent edits have been an attempt to mitigate this problem.

Primarily, I think we need to reduce the number of items detailed. Yes, they are all referenced, but we don't need to include everything that can be referenced. If you look at the talk pages of anything related to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, you will see a lot of discussion about whether a particular news item is significant enough to be included or not. Very often the conclusion is that the item, although documented, is not important enough to include, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. That's why I removed some of your examples. You have been doing the same kind of evaluation, but it may still have resulted in overkill. And your criterion for inclusion - "whether the item is in clear violation of IRS rules, criminal law, and/or NYS law" - is in itself non-neutral. This is supposed to be an article about the foundation, not an indictment of it. I think there should be additional removal of "examples" that, while documented, may not be significant enough to include. Let's talk about this. Specific items should be discussed at the article's talk page rather than here.

That's also why I removed the subsection headings. Not only is it awkward to have single-paragraph sections, but the effect of breaking out each example into its own subsection is that the table of contents reads like a bill of accusations. Again: not neutral.

As for inline external links, they are frowned upon. "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article," per Wikipedia:External links. And no, you should not add them to an external links section. That section is for things that are integral to the subject at hand (such as the foundation's own web page) or relevant to a deeper understanding of the subject. You were using the external links as a kind of substitute for a wikilink in cases where the organization does not have a Wikipedia article. That is not necessary; the name in text is sufficient for a non-notable organization.

Let's talk this out and see what we can do together to reduce the neutrality concern. Neutrality is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. We do report documented facts, and we do not censor. But in this case we may have gone too far in a particular direction, piling up example after example as if laying out a case for prosecution, instead of simply reporting significant aspects of the subject. We need to fix that. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Renovation of Pulitzer Fountain to enhance value of Trump-owned hotel" (subsection title.) Definitely reads as a piece written with intent to find flaws. Compare with 'Trump COI' that was recently deleted. I'm trying to upmerge the lost material into parent-articles where it makes more sense. Maybe the TrumpFoundation can be upmerged into Legal affairs of Donald Trump? Unless it was split off from there due to length! Sigh. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Please help on WP:AIV it is getting really crowded. 2602:306:3357:BA0:85B7:9002:A1CD:9C7D (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Academically Referenced Material

Hello, just a note that someone keeps trying to eliminate academically referenced material from this page. If you can, please keep an eye on the page. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathenry_(new_religious_movement) --146.85.212.30 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, don't edit war if they remove it again. Discuss it at the talk page and abide by the consensus. If I recall correctly, that was the issue over which the page had to be protected. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: This IP is clearly another sock of User:Holtj, who has been disruptively editing this article for years now and has had six of their socks blocked already. I've opened up another sock puppet investigation to deal with it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Midnightblueowl. I had a feeling they were part of the problem. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Where's the discussion?

Hi Melanie, re this edit -- where is the discussion which allows for the content in its entirety? Because one user has removed a chunk of content, but I'm not seeing where exactly on the talk page that specific chunk of content (wording and everything) was discussed? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note.The consensus at discussion was to include material about Comey's letter. The discussion did include working out the specific wording, see Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016#Proposed wording and Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016#Wording not supported by sources. It was inserted a week ago and has been in the article unchallenged for a week. Today there was an update, with information about the second letter. But SCJessey didn't just remove the update; he removed the entire item, update and all, claiming that any coverage about this subject was now UNDUE because it "turned out to be nothing". This was a unilateral attempt on his part to overturn the consensus (which he disagreed with but was outnumbered). It doesn't work that way. Removing it will require a new discussion and a new consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Here's what you were looking for. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It turns out that was actually their second warning - although it was their first about U.S. politics. On my way to ANI to update. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

Hi, can I interest you in this, California? Know anybody else who might be interested? Hopefully we can run something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon for the US and see a ton of California stubs improved!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion Request

Hi. I would like to request undeletion for Said the Sky which was deleted because of the reason stated by the nominator; "Notability unable to be established". However, that was one month ago. This musician is now notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.

This article has now met the criteria for musicians and ensembles (#2); "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". This musician has a song charted on two Billboard (US) charts; "Dance/Electronic Digital Songs" and "Hot Dance/Electronic Songs". As per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, the mentioned charts are acceptable. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Said the Sky

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Said the Sky. 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.

(I noticed that you're on vacation which is why I went to del review.) - TheMagnificentist (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied there. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi MelanieN.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MelanieN. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Replies

Sorry to be a pain, just a quick note that I've replied -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Got it. I sent two or three different emails in reply. Disorganized? Me? Nahhh.. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi MelanieN. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Requesting third opinion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Adolfo_Camarillo High School#Usa chant . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your administrator action at Fake news website.

We've been able to work together on the article and the talk page make improvements and hopefully also improve stability over the longer term. Sagecandor (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to know it helped. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Donald J. Trump Foundation

Hello! Your submission of Donald J. Trump Foundation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)