User talk:MelanieN/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Metcalfe's Food Company

Hi there I hope you are well. I was given your contact details by peridon. He told me you would be able to help me edit an Article. I wrote a new article about a Food Company called Metcalfe's Food Company . Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sgarcia113 Can you please have a look at it and review it so it can be rescued frome deletion? I am new to wikipedia so I really appreciate your help with this! --sgarcia113 (User talk:sgarcia113) 01:11, 07 January 2013 (UTC) Best

WP:FOC

In your article and policy talk page comments, please adhere to WP:FOC (which is on the WP:DR policy page):

Focus on article content, not on editor conduct. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to our community. Bringing up conduct often leads to painful digressions and misunderstandings.

It can be difficult to focus on content if other editors appear to be uncivil or stubborn. Stay cool! It is never to your benefit to respond in kind, which will only serve to derail the discussion. When it becomes too difficult or exhausting to maintain a civil discussion based on content, you should seriously consider going to an appropriate dispute resolution venue detailed below.

I bring your attention to this because of your focus on editor conduct (mine) rather than content, here, where you write: "What I should have said was, nobody EXCEPT BORN2CYCLE wants to see it reopened so soon." Please edit this comment so that it complies with WP:FOC. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that it's inappropriate to make comments about editors there. Do you deny that your comment there is in violation of WP:FOC? Do I really need to ask for admin assistance?

By the way, as to the content of your statement, all that previous discussion demonstrated (again) was that at best there was no consensus about whether US place names should be predisambiguated (and so status quo was favored), and there was still a lot of misunderstanding and lack of appreciation for how and why avoiding predisambiguation improves WP. This proposal is both simpler and broader, making understanding and appreciation much more likely. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, only 18 out of 58 contributors (31%) wanted to follow a policy of "no unnecessary disambiguation" (i.e., state name only when necessary for DAB), while 40 out of 58 (69%) wanted at least some U.S. cities to add the state name regardless of need for disambiguation. That seems like a pretty clear consensus - more than 2 to 1 - that US cities should have an exception to the "disambiguate only when necessary" rule. As for the current discussion, I can see no purpose for it, except to reopen the USPLACE discussion, which was closed after exhaustive (and exhausting) debate only 6 weeks ago. Isn't there some kind of statute of limitations on RFCs? --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Alternatively, 38 out of 58 (65%) wanted some kind of change, and only 20 out of 58 (34%) supported the status quo. This is an artifact of the RFC being so complicated. We were in the middle of discussing how to formulate an RFC when this one was poorly and prematurely (IMHO) proposed. This one won't have any such problems. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but sorry. The fact was that fewer than a third of discussants wanted your preferred policy; the other two thirds wanted SOME exceptions for US cities. In any case, isn't your preferred policy - "no unnecessary disambiguation" - already the case for most or all countries, with an exception for the US? Thus, isn't the (rather unclear) proposal for a new RFC merely another attempt to eliminate the exception for US cities? That's why I asked the original poster for some non-US examples of what they are talking about. If they can't supply any, then there is nothing new about this proposal; it's simply another attempt to eliminate the exception for US cities, and as I said, I think there should be some kind of grace period before we have to thrash that out again. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to restrict the regulars to some kind of grace period, but it's unfair to impose the restriction on someone previously uninvolved, which, so far as I can tell, the proposer of this RFC is.

That previously uninvolved editors like this one keep bringing up the same point (on individual articles as well as on the guideline talk page) over and over year after year after year is in and of itself evidence of there being an obvious and inherent problem with the current approach. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's never going to be unanimous, and it doesn't have to be; this is not a jury trial. After any election or other decision point, there are always people who voted for the losing candidate and people who didn't vote. That doesn't mean they can keep getting do-overs. At some point it becomes necessary to accept a decision, even if one didn't agree with it, and move on. Most people realize this. The alternative is constant stalemate with endless, unproductive rehashing of the same points.
Think about this: Two thirds of the people in that discussion wanted the state added in at least some cases; 26% wanted the state added in ALL cases, no exceptions. That means that if you got your way and eliminated all the "unnecessary" state names, there would constantly be people trying to add the state, probably twice as often as happens now with people trying to remove it. It would be an even more "obvious and inherent problem" than it is now.
I seriously do ask you: please allow yourself to accept the majority decision on this issue and let us move on to more productive work. I keep quoting the Wikipedia policy (not just a guideline but policy, "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow") that says "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." I wish you could find it in you to follow this policy. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the La Jolla page

Hi Melanie,

You're very involved on the La Jolla Wikipedia page, and I'd just like to thank you for all your positive contributions. I'm not a very regular wiki editor as you can probably tell, though I did write the original "antisemitism" section on that page under a different IP. I appreciate your efforts in helping edit that section and protecting the page as a whole from vandalism. I would most like to thank you for helping to revert the protection on the page so that everyday users can edit it again. It's very frustrating when an occasional user is prohibited from adding constructive content because of the vandalism of a select few others, and against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia as a whole, in my opinion.

Keep up the good work! 69.181.233.225 (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for advice on User:Nonsenseferret/Tom Hanlin

I wonder if I might seek your advice concerning this draft article - I am not sure whether it is notable enough to merit improvement/submission, and if it is notable I'm not sure how best to improve it - any pointers gratefully received. ---- _nonsense ferret 22:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to cast an eye over this article for me, it is much appreciated. I will consider your comments carefully, and particularly try to find more biographical details - I will keep my fingers crossed for the official review. Thanks again ---- _nonsense ferret 22:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo

Hi there! I cordially invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at WT:PLACE RfC proposal

Melanie, this is from the first line of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing:

Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing ... disrupts progress towards ... building the encyclopedia.

Below is a copy/paste of all of your contributions to the current RfC/proposal at WT:PLACE. I am bringing them to your attention because of the alarmingly low presence of constructive comments conducive to building the encyclopedia among them. I also want to bring attention to the high ratio of focus on editors rather than focus on content (see WP:FOC). In fact, almost none of the comments address the substance of the proposal at all, or discuss the pros and cons in a substantive manner. You are under no obligation to bring meaningful contributions to the various discussions going on there, of course, but I request you refrain from all commentary if your goal is not to make productive contribution conducive to developing consensus. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as U.S. cities are concerned, there was a very extensive RFC within the last couple of months, with more than 50 participants (see above). It was closed as "maintain the status quo" - that is, add the state to all U.S. cities (Tacoma, Washington) except for named exceptions like Seattle. So the situation with U.S. cities is pretty well settled and I doubt if anyone wants to see it reopened so soon. For most other countries I believe it already follows the convention you are suggesting, namely, to add the state/province/départment/whatever only if needed for disambiguation. Maybe you could restate your request for comment to make that clearer, with non-U.S. examples of what you think needs to be changed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Above I said "So the situation with U.S. cities is pretty well settled and I doubt if anyone wants to see it reopened so soon." What I should have said was, nobody EXCEPT BORN2CYCLE wants to see it reopened so soon. My reaction, and the reaction I suspect of most here is, we should accept the decision above regarding USPLACE, which was based on a very extensive discussion very recently, and spare us from another million words of repetitious debate on the subject. Accept the fact that "disambiguate only when necessary" is already the policy for most of the world, accept the consensus after multiple discussions that USPLACE is an exception, WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. PLEASE. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@Ezhiki, isn't "disambiguate only if necessary" ALREADY the guideline for most countries? My understanding is that it is, with USPLACE being a conscious exception. In other words, this RfC proposal is merely restating what is already the situation for most countries, while not allowing for the USPLACE exception. (I think the original proposer was laboring under a misunderstanding; they seemed to think "add the state" was the current rule for "places across the world", with Canada being an exception.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Since Born2cycle has made clear that he regards this proposal as specifically about overturning USPLACE, I strongly oppose it. The USPLACE issue was decided just a few weeks ago and should not be reopened. I have proposed another wording for an RfC below, if anyone wants to comment on it; otherwise let's just let it die. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, thanks for crediting me with influence far beyond reality. (Am I notable yet?) But your math seems a little off. In this current discussion, nine ten (I missed one oppose added way at the bottom) people have formally voiced opposition to the proposal to eliminate USPLACE, seven in favor. I promise you those nine ten people were not all me under different names! In the previous (just archived) discussion, 58 people took part, which is a good big sample by Wikipedia standards; only 18 of them favored a "no unnecessary disambiguation" approach to the names of US cities, while 40 favored at least some exceptions; out of those, a plurality of 20 supported the current convention. Furthermore, none of these discussions took part in "some wikiproject" or were determined by a "handful" of "locals" in a "little fiefdom"; the discussions have been here, where titles are discussed, and with lengthy (the previous discussion ran to 200,000 bytes), policy-based arguments pro and con, by both Americans and non-Americans. As for your claim that I am the one "demanding some magical special exception": the current convention has been in place for many years, and it was worked out long before I became involved in the discussion. I defend it; so do many others. If you want to participate in this discussion, that's fine, but please don't do it by dismissing all previous discussion out of hand - or pretending that there's only a single person who disagrees with your perspective. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kauffner, rather than citing a sample of who-knows-what random Google hits, the community has chosen to follow an ACTUAL Reliable Source, namely the Associated Press guideline, which is followed by virtually all newspapers (i.e. Reliable Sources) in the U.S. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

To further clarify, nobody has suggested that the "city, state" format used for US cities should be applied anywhere else in the world. I completely agree with you that it should apply only to cities in the US, as explained here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC) "have offered nothing other than pointing out the previous RfC." You're darn right we have chosen not to rehash the 200,000-byte argument that was just closed with a 2-to-1 opinion AGAINST your disambiguate-only-when-necessary policy. You are absolutely right we have chosen not to respond once again to your repetitious arguments, having responded at great length with policy-supported arguments just last month. There really ought to be a statute of limitations saying that a thoroughly-discussed RfC proposal should not come before the community again until after the passage of some reasonable amount of time - say 6 months, or a year. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Perfect description of what is going on here. Chapter and verse. Achieving a new benchmark in this subsection, where it is being proposed that the current discussion should be closed against consensus because... well, just because. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kauffner, I do wish you would read the previous discussion. One of the options offered at that discussion was to use the New York Times list of exceptions instead of the AP list (thus adding Nashville to the exceptions), but that option got only two !votes. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Don't fall for it, folks. These two latest section headings, based on points we have responded to numerous times in the past, are not worth replying to. They are just an attempt to roil the pot, to gin up discussion/argument, to get another 200,000-byte discussion going and thus "prove" that the issue is "disruptive". Plus, to try to create the impression that the result of this RfC is still in doubt. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that when Born2cycle cites WP:Status quo stonewalling, he is citing an essay written by himself. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle, you are really being insufferable here. Please recall that you were warned by ArbCom less than a year ago:[10] "Born2cycle warned: 5) Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." Also please recall that the same month you came close to being topic-banned from move discussions.[11] You might want to reread the promises you made there to avoid being topic-banned. --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The "previously uninvolved editor" made the proposal and vanished. They have not been here to respond to comments, specifically to my comment that their proposal is based on a misunderstanding of the current situation. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion went way beyond "no consensus to change". In fact, there was a clear consensus AGAINST moving to a "no unnecessary disambiguation" rule for US cities. Out of the 58 people who posted opinions there, only 18 (31%) expressed a preference for the method proposed by this RfC and endlessly endorsed by B2C, namely, "no unnecessary disambiguation in US placenames". The remaining 69% of editors wanted at least some "unnecessary disambiguation" for US cities. A plurality, 34%, wanted to keep the existing "compromise" position of listing the state name except for 40 named cities where the state name is omitted. A significant minority, 26%, wanted to disambiguate ALL US city names, no exceptions. A few (8%) wanted a larger list of cities where the the state name is omitted. The bottom line is that the consensus, by more than 2 to 1, was that US city names should NOT follow the "no unnecessary disambiguation" rule. It's hard to see what B2C would accept as consensus, if 2 to 1 is not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So let's reword it (after all, the proposal as made doesn't make any sense (striking as unduly harsh) and reflects an incorrect understanding of the actual situation). How about this: RfC to affirm that the names of cities should be listed in the most concise way, without adding unnecessary disambiguation, except when a different rule has been formally agreed to for a particular country. (I put it that way because I don't know if there are other countries that have stated a preference to add the state/province/départment to the city name, or if it is just the U.S.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It certainly does. The proposal states "I propose that the common naming convention for places across the world be changed. It has already been done for Canadian places at WP:CAN, but for other countries, the common naming consensus should be adjusted to remove the state, province, island name from the end if possible, because it is an unnecessary disambiguation, unless it is not a primary term." But this would not be a change, it is already the current understanding; the "unnecessary disambiguation" has already been removed from countries other than the U.S. The proposer then goes on to give US cities as examples, thus wanting to reopen USPLACE, which is the reason for the "strong oppose" !votes to the proposal as stated. If the proposer has examples from countries other than the US where this policy would represent a change, let them show an example. Without such examples, it is asking for a reaffirmation of the current situation, and the only "change" would be to eliminate the specific exception of USPLACE. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, yes, the original proposal here IS an attempt to overturn the recent discussion and reopen discussion on USPLACE, and you are supporting it on that basis. Thank you for confirming that. In that case, I will go back up to that proposal and make my opposition clear. I'm disappointed that you are unable to accept the result of the previous discussion, but there WAS a discussion and consensus was reached (whether or not you agree with it), and the clear feeling here is that people don't want to reopen it. IMO it would have been decent to allow for some kind of grace period (at least longer than six weeks?) before attempting to overturn that decision. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C, it is totally inappropriate for you to dismiss as "silly" the considered and policy-based arguments of all those who don't share your interpretation of the naming conventions. Sure, the controversy over how to spell yogurt was "silly" (or rather "lame"; I just noticed that it is a featured discussion at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Yoghurt or yogurt), which didn't stop you from pursuing it single-mindedly for eight years, and doesn't stop you now from repeated gloating over the fact that you finally got your way in that case. And that controversy was not "resolved finally and permanently" as you claim; in fact there is a debate about it going on right now, as you well know. But the issue here is not a argument about how to spell "yogurt". It is about how to name thousands of cities, where millions of people live. Dozens of editors have stated positions in opposition to yours, offering reasoned arguments and citing policy, but you dismiss them all as "silly", while you continue your crusade. (Interesting that you couldn't recognize yourself in the quote cited above, about those who demand a "foolish consistency".) Your attitude that only you are right, and that this issue will only be settled when it is done your way, and that you will continue hammering on it for years and years until that happens - these attitudes on your part are not in accord with Wikipedia traditions and are not beneficial to the project. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is being silly, for example, I suspect they don't realize it. That's the most backhanded "apology" I ever heard. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only PART of the Wikipedia way, and not the most important part. According to the nutshell summary at Wikipedia:Article titles, "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." USPLACE is based on those criteria, particularly the Reliable Source criterion. You seem to believe that the MOST IMPORTANT criterion is "no unnecessary disambiguation", but that opinion is not supported by that page, or by WP usage generally. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If in fact there is any implication of priority of goals at WP:Article titles, it would be that the most important are listed in the nutshell. That nutshell summary states "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." In other words, the highest priority goals are recognizability, lack of ambiguity, and consistency with Reliable Sources. See anything in there to suggest that "concision" is a top priority? Neither do I. In fact, concision clearly takes second place to the three listed there. One reason why so many editors support USPLACE, is because it meets these three objectives. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The existence of this discussion is disrespectful of the previous discussion, a mere month ago, in which 58 people !voted and a 2:1 consensus was reached. --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you all think of my suggestion above that there ought to be some kind of "statute of limitations," so that after a thorough discussion of an issue, the same issue can't be brought before the community again until after a decent time interval - say 12 months, or at least 6 months? This discussion, coming so soon after the massive previous discussion and so repetitive of it, is a complete violation of the guideline at WP:TITLE which says "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I expressed willingness to consider this specific proposal as a GENERAL rule, with provision for consensus-based exceptions such as USPLACE. I even proposed that as a possible wording, but nobody followed up on it. You clearly intend that this "new" proposal should be applied universally, without exceptions. That is what takes this out of the realm of a new idea; it isn't. Your arguments here (all of which you have made many times before, including in the just-closed discussion) reduce it to just another in a long line of attempts on your part to overturn USPLACE (which is the only exception you seem to care about; there are other place-name conventions that involve adding a state, province, prefecture, etc. that never seem to cause any problems or attract your notice). --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Rosecroft

Excellent article! It was on my get-around-to-it list ever since I started the Wooded Area article. Well done, as usual. Dohn joe (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I got inspired after noticing the National Register of Historic Places plaque there on a morning walk. Feel free to add to it. Also, note that I have nominated Point Loma, San Diego as a Good Article; anything you want to do to improve that article will be appreciated. --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll add something if I come across it. Also, I added a hatnote to Rosecroft Raceway to point to the new article. Dohn joe (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm playing with ideas for a possible DYK nomination. What do you think?

Did you know...

...that the historic Rosecroft mansion in San Diego, California played host at various times to Ronald Reagan, Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter, and Dr. Seuss?

...that more than 100 species of begonia were developed at the historic Rosecroft estate in San Diego?

...that amateur horticulturalist Alfred D. Robinson developed more than 100 species of begonia at his historic Rosecroft estate in San Diego? (this version eliminates the passive; as the old joke goes; the passive voice should be avoided whenever possible.) (And an infinitive is something you should try to never split. And a preposition is something you should never end a sentence with.)

I like one and two, because they put the emphasis on Rosecroft. My guess is that one (or something like it) would get the most lookie-loos, just because of Reagan, the Carters, and Seuss likelier being bigger draws than a begonia. Let me know if you'd rather have me nominate it. (You know, one good turn deserves another.) Hopefully we wouldn't draw a reference Nazi like we got at La Playa Trail, although it does make for a stronger article. Let me know. Dohn joe (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I went ahead and nominated it; I probably should have waited for you. I agree the version with the celebrities might draw more views (what was that about Notability is not inherited?) We'll see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No prob. I hope they pick it up. I've been going through and adding a few tidbits here and there... Dohn joe (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW thanks for the geranium article. I added it to George Marston. (Did you know that Marston's campaign for mayor a hundred years ago was the source of the still-current expression "smokestacks vs. geraniums"?) --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe it - somebody approved it two hours after I nominated it! --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

They picked the first choice above. Looks like the DYK promoter agreed with you about the value of name-dropping celebrities! It should go live midday Wednesday. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll be looking for it. Dohn joe (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rosecroft (San Diego)

 — Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

Hello, MelanieN. I see you also commented on the concerns I raised to User:Born2cycle. I was disappointed that he gave no indication that he felt the pattern of behavior I noted was disruptive and inappropriate, and instead insinuated that the concerns being raised are related to other editors' disagreements with his views. Not an encouraging response.

Given that we've already been through at least two rounds of tortuous, tendentious, and filibuster-laden discussions in the geographic names forum, I felt that now – before yet another round begins – would be an appropriate time for me to try to engage B2C directly to encourage a change of approach... but without recognition on his part of what's happening, and without a commitment from him to curb it, I unfortunately see no reason to think that upcoming debates will be any less disrupted, and that prospect concerns me.

My personal feeling is that broader attention to this matter is warranted, but I wanted a second opinion to see if/how to proceed. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I felt exactly the same about his response to you: no insight into his own behavior, and instead attributing criticism to people disagreeing with his views. I am trending the same way, and likewise was hoping for a second opinion. I am still hesitating, waiting to see how he responds to my note. But maybe we have all hesitated long enough. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

His latest "Who, me?" response was the last straw. I have posted a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Continued tendentious editing by Born2cycle. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Advice you requested

Hello Melanie. I stumbled into your request for advice on the talk page of JamesBWatson. My purpose for being there is that I am involved in the conversation directly above your latesty addition. When I saw that the feature to rollback my contribution was absent, I realised that changes were made to the page so I opened it to see if there had been a reply for me and this is where I read your post.

I could give you some information from experience although I have every certainty that JBW will advise you properly upon his return to the site. I believe you can take the matter straight to AN/I citing the very latest instance as the basis for your grievance. As I have personally had dealings on that page, partly as one bringing a case but often as the accused party, I know that cases are handled even when multiple citations need to be produced. I mean, imagine someone broke the three-revert rule, you would automatically have to cite four revisions at fewest (the three reverts followed by the fourth within 24 hours of the first). As I edit on political subjects, it is a fact that I have a few extant enemies here and there is nothing they'd like to see more than my removal from Wikipedia. Last summer there must have been four purges against me in less than a month. Thankfully they failed due to lack of evidence and improper conduct on the part of the plaintiffs. Even so I recall that many of my actions were impugned within a single case. In your situation, it is not the number of citations, as the more of these you can provide the stronger your case is. You are merely alerting the admins that some months back, one user was warned about his behaviour and this has not remedied and here is the proof: x, y, z, etc.. Continued agression, tendentious editing, the list grows. As you have wisely abstained from providing specific information, I believe you can launch an AN/I case immediately. Good luck. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Wanna help?

Hi Melanie,

I found a topic that needs an article... I've started it in my user space and thought you might want to help. It's about the disappearance of the McStay family in San Diego (well, Fallbrook). Basically all I have so far is the start of an intro. Plenty of sources on the 'net.

User:Born2cycle/McStay_family_disappearance

I plan to move it into article space when it's close to complete and has proper citations.

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I barely remember this case - did it really get much local press? I won't have much time today but will do a little searching when I can. Sounds like it deserves an article all right. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're right - there is plenty of coverage including recent coverage, three years later, so it certainly passes the notability test. --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, no question it's notable. I don't remember hearing about it at all 3 years ago, but saw some recent pieces on it at the 3 year anniversary, became intrigued, and was surprised we had nothing on it here. What doesn't seem to exist anywhere on the web is a complete and credible timeline of the known/source facts over those first 3 days (after that, nothing). That's something this article can do, and I think is really important.

I thought it was something you and I should be able to do get done without bickering too much! Hopefully! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be nice to collaborate on something for a change. Good idea, thanks for the approach! I should have some time today to work on it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started making some notes in my own sandbox (which I use as a scratch pad). Looked at some references, started a timeline as you suggest. Feel free to use it as a resource to work on the article in your sandbox. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I also started on a lead paragraph in your sandbox. That's all I have time for today. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: I spent an hour or two on this proposed article, but Born2cycle never followed up or did anything more with it so I have dropped it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hyperia (epilepsy)

Reasons because I think it is necessary to maintain the neologism ´hyperia':

I fundamented the decision to crate a neologism on two reasons: firstly, the fact that this innovative hypothesis entails great consequences which will constitute important changes in different neurosciences: neurology, psychiatry, neurophysiology, etc. Basically and summarizing, it is necessary to differentiate clearly and distinctly hiperic activity from epileptic activity, since the first one is physiological and the second one is pathological. So, hyperia and epilepsy are two concepts necessarily different.

Secondly, there are many different denominations to allude to psychic automatisms that are the subject of our investigation: aura, partial seizures with quantitative consciousness preserved SPSs), non-convulsive seizures (Hirsch & Jirsch 2007), non-convulsive behavioral seizures (Pontius & Wieser 2004), etc. Some of these terms induce to confusion (v. g. aura) and other ones are not exactly synonymous. So, the most quick and practice solution to finish with this confusion is terming these automatisms with substantive hyperia or adjective hiperic, in such way that when we say or read hiperic manifestations immediately we know to what kind of manifestations are we referring to: unexpected depersonalization without apparent reason, or a sudden déjà vu, or a devastating panic attack, or incomprehensible alternations of manic-depressive phases, or sudden hallucinations and delusions accompanied of brilliant clairvoyance, etc. --Japal1950 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have copied them to the discussion page so that people can evaluate them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank to you because I did not know how to write to discussion page. But, now I could to explain my reasons there.--Japal1950 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not so same

Don't merge the word, actually not so same if you ever see real of this in picture. Don't say about this word first. I'm not so sure but really not same. If you want prove I can show you some pictures. Welcome you! continue talk in my talk page. K.b.cheng (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, i saw you had already edit, remember don't merge with that word. It's same kind but different from country. I had already wrote on my talk page. K.b.cheng (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

School districts

Creator has the intention to generate 12,000 empty stubs on these. Are you seriously happy with that, or would you rather they were created more efficiently first time so cleanup and manual expansion work isn't so desperately needed? Because by voting keep and making such comments you are encouraging the creator to create further problematic rapid fire stubs and further the mess rather than discussing a solution to improve their quality and production.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. IMO the topics are notable, and Wikipedia specifically allows for the creation of stubs. Whether the articles are created 12,000 in a batch, or 1,000 in a month, or 10 in a week does not matter; I have never heard of "these articles are being created too fast" as a valid reason for deletion. Also, article quality is not a reason for deletion. Deletion or retention is based on notability of the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't always. Trust me that we've deleted thousands of notable articles enmasse because of editorial concerns that they're riddled with errors and it would be easier to recreate. If you can't see that it would be more beneficial to delete Limestone County School District and all others like it and recreate feeding efficiently off a template which recreates it like Carlisle School District (Arkansas) as a start so we eventually have all 12,000 articles which are consistently sourced and full of data... Yes, we can keep the articles and override them first before he creates anymore, but cleanup is needed and the stubs which were created are not acceptable or helpful to our readers with basic grammar, category and often website errors.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's been stated elsewhere, but we got thousands of municipality articles instantly via Ram-Ram back in 2003, and we needed that to expand and to cover all inherently notable topics. Any municipality in the USA is inherently notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Thanks! I see you have many greater accomplishments than the paragraph you improved so quickly and so well in The Cadfael Chronicles entry today or yesterday. The article needs even more of your clarity with accuracy, and I thank you for it.

Prairieplant (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Theater/theatre

So that "theater/theatre" issue that you raised over at WP:SPELLING seems to have taken off. People are suggesting sources right and left! Care to chime in? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the head-up; I wasn't aware of this sudden interest. I don't have time to chime in right now due to Real Life issues but will watch with interest. MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

VSP deletion debate

There is currently a deletion debate for Very Serious People. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philip_H._Friedman_(2nd_nomination)

As you were the only commenter on the original AFD, I thought you might be interested in this one as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Emil Frei

Really outstanding work so quickly. I am very glad that you transformed crap into a little jewel. Thank you so much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That one was fun. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You are, after all, one of the good people who help make this the world's greatest free information resource. Thank you for all that you do here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you help

Hi,

I am desperate for help with wikipedia--would like to enlist you to put up page for me--I invented phrase sexual harassment (1975) have proof! Then wrote first book, 1978, Sexual Shakedown: the Sexual harassment of Women on the Job.pub. McGraw-Hill. Warner Books did paper back following year. My name is Lin Farley, lfarley632@gmail.com. If you aren't interested, perhaps you could direct me elsewhere.

I am way lost here :(

Lin

Linfar (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Lin, and thanks for your note. I have replied on your talk page, and let's continue the conversation there. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Ryan Resubmission

Hi Melanie! User:Peridon recommended I run my new revised version by you to see if you thought it had enough credibility for resubmission. I have modified the article [1]. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if I have provided enough reference data? I have added about 11 sources from 3rd party verifiable sites to back my claims. Once you look please let me know if I need anything else prior to re-submission. Thanks so much! Drm04008 (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I will do what I can, although I don't work a lot on music articles here. I took a brief look (have to go offline for a while). You have it very nicely formatted but it could use some improvements before going live. My first suggestion would be to put the references into a more standard style, so that we can see where they come from. The easiest way to do that is to use the "cite" box on the row of boxes just above the edit window. If you click that, it will give you a choice of formats - web, news, book, etc. Choose one and fill in the blanks such as URL, title, author, date, source (which may be called "work" or "newspaper"), etc. Then put your cursor at the place in the article where you want the reference to go, and click "add citation". That's important! If you don't click "add citation" to put it into the article, it will vanish and you'll have to do it all again. See if you can get this to work. In addition, two of your "external links" have to go; Twitter and YouTube are not accepted as links here. Good luck and I'll check back with you tomorrow. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie - I have made the changes as you have specified - got rid of the two non-accepted sources of YouTube and Twitter as well as properly formatted all citations. Please let me know if you think I am good once you are able to look! Thanks so much - really appreciate it! Drm04008 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, good job on the references. Now we need to see if he meets the criteria of notability for musicians as spelled out at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Personally I'm not sure he does. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and has pretty high standards for inclusion; it's not enough that the person has performed or made his work available for download; they have to have received significant notice in the music world. The requirement is "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." You have done the very best you could in terms of digging up references - I searched to see if I could find any more, but I couldn't. But I'm not sure those references are going to be enough. I am just one person, and it's not up to me to decide, but I just wanted to warn you that even the improved article may not pass muster once you put it into Wikipedia mainspace. If it doesn't, you might have to forget about a Wikipedia article for now - it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Right now it is early in his career, he is releasing his work independently through digital downloads rather than through a studio, and he just hasn't been the subject of major writeups, or gotten major awards, or drawn the kind of attention that is needed. JMO.

If you do want to proceed with it, let's get the article into the best possible shape first. I see one problem right away: per the notability rules, the lead sentence needs to explain how or why he is "notable". If the article doesn't make his notability clear in the first couple of sentences, it could be speedy-deleted. So think about what his best claim to notability is, and put that in the lead paragraph. One other thing: per Wikipedia style the article should refer to him (after first use) by last name - Ryan, not Nathan. (Or simply "he"; you don't have to keep repeating his name.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

MelanieN, Thank you so much for your input. I also found another article from HLN tv and added it as an additional reference. I also rewrote the opening paragraph since Nathan Ryan has impacted many individuals on a personal level and included that in the write up. I have now submitted the write-up for approval again and will await a response! Your help is greatly appreciated! Hope you have a great week. Drm04008 (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, and good luck! And thanks for the barnstar... --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching this, I should have looked more closely rather than just creating every redlink as a redirect. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Melchers Building

Well done, as usual. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

A candidate for rescue?

If you get a moment, could you have a look at Williams & Heintz Map Corporation? I think it's probably notable, but it needs refs and a bit of reworking. BTW what happened in the end over that business you asked me to look at at AN or AN/I? Someone being awkward. I lost track of it and the idea of searching the archive (or my contribs) for something whose title I'd forgotten didn't appeal. Peridon (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The ANI thing was probably this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Continued tendentious editing by Born2cycle That went on for megabytes and was finally closed with a solomonic decision IMO: nobody got blocked or banned, but the option of a block or ban was left open for future individual cases. About Williams and Heintz, I had a quick look and wasn't encouraged by its prospects - IMO it needs a LOT of work - but I'll do a little looking into it later on when I have more time.--MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least no babies were divided... As to W&H, the author has made one rewrite to get away from a copyvio. I've declined a speedy for spam as it's not that bad, but even helpful suggestions would probably be welcomed. When you can. I can always dig it up if it gets buried. Peridon (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not finding much about W&H. This article from the Washington Post is actually about them but seems like a routine or directory type article. Everything else I find is just mentions about contracts they landed. I'm not convinced this company meets the notability test. The format of the article is a mess - all those • lists of • programs and • equipment they are • using makes it very hard to read - but I'm afraid it may not be worth fixing. If this turned up at AfD I would !vote to delete as failing WP:CORP. Sorry! --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. Plenty of mentions of their products in libraries and on Facebook, but not one article about the company. Thanks anyway. I might try AfD on it - unexpected things turn up there sometimes. Peridon (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Spanish articles on school districts

Hi, Melanie! I notice you worked on San Ysidro Elementary School District. I'd like to inform you that I started a Spanish version at es:Distrito Escolar de San Ysidro.

If you know a little bit of Spanish or want to practice Spanish, since San Diego has a large Spanish speaking population it may help to participate on the Spanish Wikipedia and add Spanish versions of articles. Alex (es:Usuario:Vrysxy), a San Diegan, is a founding member of the United States Wikiproject on the Spanish Wikipedia and he also has a San Diego project there. If you need help, he's a great resource for it

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment from a talk page stalker: Excellent work that you are doing. This is a project that will take years, decades and centuries. In a few years, I hope, any English speaker can read high quality translations of any Spanish Wikipedia article. And vice versa. And eventually, a Vietnamese speaker can read an outstanding biography of a Finnish novelist, originating on Finnish Wikipedia. And eventually, a speaker of an "obscure" language of the New Guinea highlands will have access to tens of millions of articles in their own language. Human knowledge, accessible, at their fingertips, for free. That is my dream, and I know, with certainty, that it can be done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Whisper, and congrats on your article. (Not just a translation - your article contains original information.) Unfortunately I'm not qualified to evaluate it or to help in this way. I don't know Spanish - except for the pidgin Spanish that any Californian knows. (I do know German, but not well enough to translate.) And thanks for fixing my error in the English article - where I referred to San Ysidro as if it was a separate city instead of a neighborhood of San Diego. Whack! (as I trout myself) and Amen! to Brother Cullen's dream. --MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Now I see where I got that error: the school district itself refers to San Ysidro that way.[2] I still deserve a trout, but so do they. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sign

My error, i have a cut and paste sfba taskforce template, as i have been adding massive numbers of sfba related articles to the task force, and sometimes i dont look as long at the article as i should. I would say that for a subject like this sign (which i have seen, of course), the article you have created is definitely at least start, and probably qualifies as a C. i will change that. ps, i will most likely add it to the Portal:San Francisco Bay Area as a "DYK" in 3 months. I dont write DYK style tags yet, but i will try to do that next time. (im currently the only truly active editor of the project, and definitely the only editor at the portal, both of which were moribund for some time).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement. I created Category:National Register of Historic Places in San Mateo County, California, populated it, and will probably create parallel cats for the other counties not yet done. I think its odd there are so many NRHP's w/o articles. I did create 2 myself for hayward, they arent that difficult, and you dont have to worry about whether they are notable. Actually, why havent I created more?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at National Register properties without articles when I have time; I noticed there were a lot. Like you, I am interested in the subject; I recently created and populated the San Diego and San Diego County NRHP categories. And as you say these subjects are guaranteed notable. I'm afraid I won't be much help with the portal - I have never really gotten the point of portals, I am more of an article geek. But I see what I can do in the article area. So many missing articles, so little time! ;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think portals are odd, but i thought: since there IS an SFBA portal, with little templates on so many articles, id try to come up with an easy way to keep it useful w/o constant attention. now its stable, and i just have to do some editing each 3 months (my choice), and certain pages will not be changed, just added to slowly. some portals have "in the news" which is a nightmare. welcome to the SFBA project.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Alcatraz

You're a funny one. You were happy to keep the crappy little stubs on school districts (which are still in a state) but you were happy to delete Reported hauntings of Alcatraz as non notable.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, you don't let go, do you? Yes, if it's "funny" to think that WP:N means what it says, and that WP:STUB exists for a reason, then I guess I am a funny one. I see you have recently done a lot of work on the Alcatraz article, and changed its title. I'll take another look at it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, but I noticed that you did take the time to comment at an AFD on an article I'd created and saw your "delete, non notable" comment and I just couldn't help but shake my head at your way of thinking and outlook on notability. If you hadn't of commented or voted delete I wouldn't have confronted you. The topic is very notable as is Alcatraz as a prison, based on the huge range of sources I'm not sure what made you think that. Because ghosts might be a load of nonsense? The legends surrounding Alcatraz are as notable as pretty much anywhere. Sorry, I just get the sense that we still have issues between us over that school district AFD. You think I'm an asshole, right? I know you comment on California AFDs but your comment did alarm me and did wonder if you knew that I had created the article. I'm pretty easy going actually, but I think we got off on the wrong foot with the school article AFD, so I'd like to clear the air, especially as I like working on California related article and our paths might cross again. I apologize for being an A-class douchebag. That OK LOL? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

My goodness! I don't take these things personally, and I certainly don't think you are all the names you called yourself. No apology necessary. I had no idea you were involved with the Alcatraz article; I generally don't know who wrote an article unless they identify themself as author in the discussion. As you surmised I do comment on many California articles; that's one of the delsorts on my watchlist. Now that I look, I see that you have created or heavily edited a lot of Alcatraz articles. We certainly agree that Alcatraz is notable; we can disagree about whether individual aspects of Alcatraz are deserving of individual articles or not - and still be friends, right? --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! You might be interested in working with myself and Rosiestep (a fellow Californian) on some articles. Josephine Tychson is the latest.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Right now I have my hands full with trying to create or expand National Register of Historic Places articles for San Diego County and the Bay Area. Plus of course expanding the occasional school district article. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh OK, I was confusing with somebody else, I was thinking you were from the bay area not Diego! Only editor I know from San Diego is Nehrams. I'm a bit busy at the moment too I suppose but if you ever want any help let me know! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, for that matter, I was thinking you were a Belgian master criminal living in Japan. You mean your userpage ISN'T serious? 0;-D Similarly, if you need any help regarding San Diego let me know. (I have done some work on Bay Area articles, and I recently joined Wikiproject San Francisco, but alas, there are so many articles needing help and so little time!) --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Born in Bruges living in deepest Japan yup! But not too deep that we don't have conventional toilets. Even the cat has his own pair of green sandals LOL! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Help: Nitram Charcoal

Hi Melanie,

I have been having trouble adding a Wikipedia page for Nitram Charcoal and Peridon mentioned you might be just the person to help. Nitram Charcoal has been around since 1965 and was recommended to me by my atelier because of its standing in the charcoal community - doesn't crumble as much as traditional willow or vine charcoal.

Tokyogril79 mentioned that maybe focusing on the original creator, Martin Gros, and expanding from there might be the route to take - however there is even less information available on him since it gained popularity under his son's direction in the limited circles of charcoal artists.

Although Nitram Charcoal is a small niche, I truly believe it is worthy of a mention within Wikipedia and would appreciate any help you would be able to give.

Thank you for your time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Christina119/Nitram_Charcoal

PS. Sorry for the edits - I am new to Wikipedia and still learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christina119 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I replied at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

BAS BLP

The photo of the house would be completely out of order even if her dad and the girl he married (who was BAS's former cellmate) did not still live there. They have a daughter too.Overagainst (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Chocoholism

Interesting. I think its a notable term, but only as the word for a person "suffering" from it: chocoholic. I agree it should be recreated, under that name again, with "chocoholism" listed as the term for the alleged addiction. We dont need to prove its medically based, just have to show its prevalence in (ugh) "popular culture". I will consider working on it at some point.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that we're talking about it, I've started to work on it. Mostly just trimming away the chaff at this point, and putting some possible sources in External Links for reference. What was I thinking in neglecting it so long? Chocolate is a lot more interesting than NRHP listed properties, right? ;-D --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's not bad now. See what you think, and what it still needs. (To understand why it got deleted, check out how it read at the time: [3] ). --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this version is great, the previous was obviously not passable. good (actually great) wording, I don't see anything missing, though i will look for more info. The name should be as you indicate, upon thinking about it (ism is a noun, "ic" is a descriptor). I dont think this can be used, but its my favorite use of the word: [4] (from The Onion).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ive linked the 2 words where they appear, and fixed the redirect for Chocoholic.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

MelanieN, I noticed your question on Ron Ritzman's talk page. Since Ron isn't around much these days (which I regret), I took the liberty of reading your draft. I think that you should move it to main space. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. I noticed that he hadn't posted since April 1 (and Wikipedia surely misses him), but I see he has very efficient talk page stalkers! Thanks and I will go ahead and move it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's moved. Can you think of any other categories for it besides Category:Chocolate? --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a couple. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

After reading the item from The Onion linked above, I feel compelled to disclose that I sometimes eat chocolate while drinking bourbon. I hope that this occasional habit doesn't disqualify me from this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like Original Research to me! --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, then, please stop me, friend, if I try to write an article about the pleasures of eating chocolate while drinking whiskey. Your article, on the other hand, is very nicely done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but you don't know what I was consuming while writing it, do you? ;-D --MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Knowledge and imagination are very different, but intimately related. So, no. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Lin Farley's connection to Newark

You have created an article for Lin Farley which indicates that she was born and raised in Newark, New Jersey. However, the source provided there regarding her parents does not make any mention of Newark. She was also added as a notable in the List of people from Newark, New Jersey, but the source there also makes no mention of Newark. I have searched Google / News / Archives / Books and found no mention of her being from or growing up in Newark. Can you help find reliable and verifiable sources to confirm this information? Alansohn (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I find that that information came from an unreliable source, and I can't find confirmation in a reliable source. I will delete it. Verifiability, not truth. Thanks for catching this. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite the birthplace issue, this article is an important contribution to the encyclopedia, and I thank you for writing it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting contrast between these two articles, isn't it - an earnest reformer and a sinful indulgence. That variety is one of the things that makes Wikipedia work so much fun. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

La Jolla Woman's Club

Check it out - let me know what you think. And feel free to give it the full MelanieN treatment! Dohn joe (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Great job, congratulations! I have nothing to add; I just tweaked the categories a little and condensed the references. This is an article we've been needing, thank you for doing it. (...and spelling it right...) --MelanieN (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought about calling it the La Jolla Womyn's Club, but that probably wouldn't have gone over too well. (Maybe in your Lin Farley article...?) :) Dohn joe (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I wonder what Ellen Browning Scripps would have thought of that? Of course she was a pretty liberated woman for her time. --MelanieN (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chocoholism

Hello! Your submission of Chocoholism 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! Jrcla2 (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

San Diego Comic-Con International meetup proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I now see you'd already commented; didn't catch that at first because your comments had been transferred from a different location. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me! --MelanieN (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know there is renewed discussion, after someone voiced concern about the location of the meetup, as you said you might come to the meet up please see the discussion Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1#Location.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edgar Gott

Hi Melanie - would you mind taking a quick look at this article? I know the refs need work. I should just learn how to do multiple refs.... I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks great - good article! Here's how you do multiple citations to the same reference: At the main citation (it doesn't have to be the first mention in the article), give the reference a name. Any name, for example the author's last name or initials, or anything else that makes sense to you. You do that like this: <ref name = "whatever"> followed by the rest of the citation. Then at all the other citations you just put <ref name = "whatever" /> . For example <ref name = "UT">[San Diego Union Tribune], April 14, 2013</ref> could be the main citation and <ref name = "UT" /> would be all the others. It's a little tricky (the quotation marks and the / mark are essential, and the name is case sensitive) so I find it pays to use Preview before posting. My only other comments would be about the categories: where does it say he was of German descent? And should be be listed as a person from San Diego? Great article, keep up the good work! --MelanieN (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref tip and the nice review. I'll get in and change the refs soon. I might remove the German descent category. As for the other cat, he spent roughly equal times in Detroit (where he was born and raised), Seattle (as executive of Boeing), and San Diego (as executive of Consolidated, and where he died). I'll add the other two. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Chocoholism

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sweet! Happy to have made a tiny contribution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

...and the bourbon to go with tonight's chocolate is...? --MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am all out of bourbon, so I think I will make an old school Martini in a while. Gin, a droplet or two of vermouth, and two big fat olives skewered on a toothpick. I will pick up a bottle of whiskey tomorrow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've probably got a little Jack Daniel's around here somewhere... --MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OP?

Hi MelanieN!
You will find it here!
Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 08:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Wikinic

	Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
	You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! —howcheng {chat} 02:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

List of Breweries...

Thanks for the note. You're doing a great job! --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Rescue article Imlee

Hi MelanieN, I got your reference through Peridon. I had created an article for Imlee and tried to follow the guidelines as much as i could understand. I also referred to similar articles on Wikipedia and structured my article in accordance with them. But, somehow the article did not meet the guidelines and was not considered to be neutral and deleted on the same grounds. Can you please help me rescue the same. I would be grateful. Thank you Mansi2988 (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Mansi Sheth

Thanks for your note. I have replied on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN, Thank you for your note on my talk page. Your help is really appreciated. Imlee, is an Indian website and I had created a page about it similar to Zomato, Quikr etc. I had referred to these articles before writing mine so as to follow the rules and guidelines and avoid any problems. Please do let me know what can be done. Thank you Mansi2988 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Mansi Sheth

Let's wait for Peridon to restore the page to someplace where I can look at it - then we'll see what we can do. --MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Thank you for all your help and guidance. I will put the article on hold for now and will write about it once some reliable sources are up. Mansi2988 —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Death Valley Academy

Sure, I'll shortly post the text here, not sure just how much use it will be, cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. OK, thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Melanie, I've just written a message on Jim's talkpage... and then wondered why on earth Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MelanieN is still a red-link. I'd be more than happy to be a co-nominator (I'm far too shy and gnomish to be a primary nominator). Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very kind, Peter, but I'm not ready for that step at this point. Thanks, though, I'm flattered. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I wondered why the mascot is described as "the Scorpions" rather than "a blue scorpion". I suspect that I've missed something, can you clarify? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything at their web page says "Home of the Scorpions".[5] It even says that on the signs on the school building: "Death Valley High School, home of the Scorpions". (You can see those signs in the rotating pictures on the school district's website.) It's true their cartoon of the mascot is a blue scorpion, but I felt the mascot name should be given as they themselves use it, rather than descriptively. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think to check the source ): My bad mistake (I followed your link to Wikispeak) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that you would make a great administrator, but the choice is yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen, I really appreciate that. Maybe later. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ouch

You were quite right about the Snoopy book.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry - I found two more sources and put it back. Snoopy's place in literature is secure. I think. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I just wish we could find a reason to put the board game for guessing first lines of books in. I know of three such games, but only one is called It was a Dark and Stormy Night. Good work.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviews should be good enough, if they are from Reliable Sources. Here's one if you want to give it a try: [6] --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I had to pay $2.95 to read that. However, WP does allow stuff behind a paywall.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editor's Rule #1: Articles behind a paywall are NEVER worth $2.95. Usually, there is little more of value than what shows in the snippet view. I speak from bitter experience. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd have gone ahead and cited the snippet view; as Cullen says it's usually enough. But hey, I hope you get your $2.95 worth, in terms of a citation that will stick. --MelanieN (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I love that new source you found, about the "debate" between Scott Rice and Bulwer-Lytton's descendent! I expanded the citation. because there were great quotes in it from both sides. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

First San Diego Comic-Con International meetup

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. Meetup time and location have solidified, thought you would like to know. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

SONGS

because wiki is not a forum, prefer to continue here :D

i read a couple of articles about connections of gas and the closure of kewanee, crystal river 3 and SONGS with lower gas prices. sure that there is no connections? duke energy delayed shanon harris of few years for low gas prices. crystal river was taken offline from middle 2009, and only for the cost of 1G$ it closed. at songs it asked to start-up at 70% to get money back, and waiting to decide if replace the steamers of repair them. seriusly no connections with gas-prices?

gas maket in USA is not unique ad in italy, there are many differences among states, but......sound strange to me listen that low gas prices didn't influenced the decision very much, for last decisions in nuclear policies FOR gas prices--Dwalin (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting comments. I don't know about the others, but I don't think this applies to SONGS. The main problem with that argument is that gas prices are NOT especially low right now; in California they are on the high end. In any case a nuclear generator is a decades-long investment; I don't think it would be affected by fluctuations in the price of gas. In the US and especially in California, political pressure against nuclear energy is a much bigger factor. That caused the regulators to crack down and make things difficult. The regulators said they could not start up at 70% capacity, which caused Edison to shut the plant.

The other problem with this theory is, I just did a search and I could not find any Reliable Source making a connection between the shutdown and gas prices. We would need a Reliable Source if we wanted to put it in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

how much SONGS will safe

price of natural gas in USA & 2.

the steamers were ordered at least in 2008 when gas prices were higer.

gas prices aren't important? don't think so. in any case i'm not able to find the article....was of a californian press in any case.--Dwalin (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I think the info about replacing the steam generators should go in the articles; I'll try to figure out how. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

re: barnstar

How very kind of you. It turns out that I really enjoy my non-admin closures (when the circumstances are right). Anyway, I appreciate the gesture. See you around AfD! czar · · 09:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: CPRA

I noticed you deleted the changes I made to several politicians about their positions on the California Public Records Act. As I'm new to this space and I'm trying to find alternative ways to document major changes like this, could you offer suggestions that won't lead to deletion? If I were to edit the CPRA and talk about the issue in a a way that offered perspective and then listed the representatives who voted for this and who didn't, is that acceptable? Thank you! --Bayreporta (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2013 (PST)

Thanks for your help! I would value your input after the post is updated to ensure I have upheld Wiki Standards! --Bayreporta (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2013 (PST)

Yosimar Reyes AfD (more references found)

Regarding the Yosimar Reyes AfD, could you take a look at the references I found? (see this diff)-- it's still rather borderline but a bit more than just the San Jose Mercury News now. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Big Game

I just counted the red boxes and there are 58. The article said 57 prior to the most recent game. Plus, if 115 games have been played, 57-46-11 doesn't add up to 115. So either one game is coded wrong (meaning another tie or Cal victory) or it's 58. Can you check your source again? Reverting for now... --Esprqii (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll defer to your count. I found conflicting information at supposedly official sites and went with 57, but your math is convincing. Thanks for fixing this. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Melanie,

I want to apologize for the tone conveyed in this comment from last week. I have been told that it was interpreted to be "mocking". That's not what I intended. Everyone makes flawed arguments, and I was just trying to bring attention the flaw in that particular argument. But the manner in which I did that was inappropriate, interpreted by at least some as "mocking", and I apologize for that. Getting tone right in written form is always a challenge, but hopefully this experience will help me improve. If you find me commenting inappropriately in the future, please let me know. --B2C 19:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, B2C. Looks like I won't need to say anything; other people seemed to be on top of it. Apology accepted; I know that "tone" is something you are working on. (BTW I note that BDD seemed astonished when he found himself agreeing with BOTH of us at Talk:Yohogania County#Requested move. It's always good to keep people guessing. 0;-D) --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

correction

Hi, in the AN thread you said he reversed the reverse of the close because of the RMV discussion I opened- not true. He reversed his reversal first. After he re-instated the move, then I opened the move review. Would you mind updating your comment at AN accordingly? I was actually hoping to solve this whole thing w/o a move review. He found consensus to move, and I'm not going to debate that further, it's just his choice of move target was frankly terrible for readers, - in spite of many people liking it. I'm not sure though why he's feeling so put upon. I apologized on his talk page and he reverted my apology - my last statement in the earlier discussion was intended to try to calm down the others who were piling on. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have fixed it. I SAID it was a confusing history! ;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow Edit War

Thanks for the heads up. I would guess the three edit rule would apply to them as well. You are correct in that it does not cause me great moral discomfort, but I do get a little tired of people misquoting statistics and facts to promote an agenda. It has gotten too easy to tell a lie, and then claim it is just perspective or technically correct. I will see how far this goes, but I do think they are in violation of the policy on sneaky vandalism by selectively quoting a citation out of context. With that being the case, Wikipedia suggests a build up and user resolution before elevating the problem. Based on your advice, my next response will elevate the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mott Black Coffee (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I posted my position on the talk page. I am trying to be reasonable and willing to drop the entire reference to FNC shows acknowledging the Milestone for the show. If comparisons are made across time slots and demographics, I do feel like a complete explanation is required. No more edits for me, let's see how this is resolved.Mott Black Coffee (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10