Jump to content

User talk:MelanieN/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Why article rescue is good for your health and sanity

The Minories. Colchester Castle (not pictured) is on the other side of the road.

Here's a story for you. About 18 months ago, I rescued The Minories, Colchester (it was a declined AfC submission rather than a CSD or AfD, but the principle is the same) and took it to DYK. By co-incidence, I met up with the current manager of the building this weekend. After ten minutes of chatting, he realised I was the editor who rescued the article, gave me profuse thanks at inadvertently showing the local community that the Minories was a "serious" building with a "serious" history, which has helped business. Obviously promoting the Minories wasn't my actual intent, but anything that results in a happier reader has got to be encouraged. As a postscript, I got free coffee and biscuits. Yum! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, oh - you just confessed to editing Wikipedia for money coffee and biscuits! I expect you to make a COI declaration from now on! Kidding. It is always nice to find that our editing here actually does have an impact on real people. I once got, out of the blue, a thank-you email from a person whose article I had cleaned up and cleared of negative BLP stuff. I was actually a little startled to hear from him, because at that time I did not have email activated, and he had figured out my full name and email address anyhow. But he was an investigative reporter and I guess that is what they do. --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I see no serious COI issues as long as the biscuits include McVitie's [1] and the beverage includes PG Tips [2] (tea), and that we all are perpetually invited to this meetup. However, should any of these qualifications go unmet... Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, Leprof, so your feeling is that it's OK for Ritchie to be compensated for editing, as long as we all get a cut of the swag? Works for me! Ritchie, where's our cookies? (Sorry, but I'm a Yank - a biscuit means something else on this side of the pond.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Girl Scout cookies
On second thought, I'll supply the cookies - or biscuits if you will. It's Girl Scout Cookies season over here and we are awash in them. How can you say no to an adorable little girl in a uniform? Eat up, Wikipedians, there are plenty more where these came from. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Pardon me, I could not possibly have made such an ethically compromised statement. Must have been something in my eye.  ; ) Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Riiiight. Have a cookie biscuit. --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

San Diego County meetup

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/April 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ika Hügel-Marshall

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ika Hügel-Marshall you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rosiestep -- Rosiestep (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to you and Ritchie333 on your newest GA! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Good news, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your helpful review, Rosestep - and thanks for the congrats, Gerda! This was a fun article to work on, about a very interesting woman. I even got to read her whole book, in dead-tree form! --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Page Protect

The film baby deals with India Pakistan terrorism . So Vandals from Pakistan is trying to disrupt the page constantly . You temporarily semi protected the page , but they are back again . I think for one year , the page should be semi protected . And those IP range should be blocked from editing the wiki page . Only those IP range from where maximum vandalism occurs . CosmicEmperor (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:CosmicEmperor, I am away from my computer. I suggest you post a request at WP:RFPP. Sorry. MelanieN alt (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yahoo

Regarding your removal of the speedy deletion template on Yahoo, no discussion is necessary for non-controversial moves. That is the difference between proposed deletion and speedy deletion (your edit summary described it as a "proposed move", which it is not). This is just a routine technical fix to comply with policy and precedent. Have you reviewed the MOS:TM policy that I referenced?

Furthermore, your edit summery referenced how Yahoo! is a highly visible page. While that is true, it doesn't matter; we would only be reversing a redirect which will not break existing links. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 21:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. User:Voidxor. I am well familiar with the criteria for G6. And I do know the difference between proposed deletion (which this was not) and a proposed move (which this was). I understand that you believe it would not be controversial to change the title of the main article from Yahoo! to Yahoo. However, I disagree. I think moving an article of this visibility (thousands of views a day, with more than 3800 different editors having worked on it and 554 page watchers) IS potentially controversial and should go through the normal Requested move process. If you are correct that this is an obvious, uncontroversial move, then it shouldn't be hard to gain consensus for it at RM, and the redirect page can then be G6ed. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Even if there's controversy at the page level, it shouldn't matter when overruled by a global policy. So while I strongly disagree that we should allow an article's popularity to influence whether we enforce existing policies (which, by the way, came about due to consensus), I will follow the requested move process if you are reluctant to be bold on established policy enforcement. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 22:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done as requested. Your vote would be appreciated at Talk:Yahoo!#Requested move 4 March 2015. Thanks! – voidxor (talk | contrib) 22:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for La Loca (opera)

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you, MelanieN, for being bold enough to kindly point out the things that I was doing incorrectly: I hope that my future actions will fall within the policy and guidelines adopted by Wikipedia. Please do not hesitate to call me out on anything that I may be doing incorrectly (like spouting out too much legalese) or advise me on a better way of communicating or how to edit. In your actions, you have helped me become a better member of this community. So, thank you! Jim at WRB (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thanks for the laughs and for well making this a better place to be!,

It's nice to know there's people on this place that isn't this miserable,
Keep up the great work and the great humour too :) –Davey2010Talk 01:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

... and thanks for taking a ribbing in the sense it was intended. I should know better, though. There's always someone who takes it wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I knew you were joking it was just obvious to anyone so no worries, Exactly you always get one that ruins the fun here!, If you think today's bad enough imagine 5-10years time! - Doesn't bear thinking about . –Davey2010Talk 01:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Davey, I'm afraid unless you have had express written permission from Martinevans123, being funny is punishable by extreme sarcasm and irony. (On the other hand, I no longer get stressed out about the Dartford Crossing since they removed the toll boths, so it's not all bad). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
My comment wasn't even that funny. As is often the case at Wikipedia, it's not the comment itself that's funny - it's the reaction by somebody who doesn't get it. Like when Mkativerata posts an "oppose" vote in the "Support" section at RfA, and somebody always thinks it's a mistake and moves it to the "Oppose" section. Now THAT's funny! --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I will try

...to look back at the alcohol and health article that you called to my attention, before the end of the month. Apology for the delay in seeing your message. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Leprof. I had forgotten about that article myself. It needed major work as I recall. Let's work on it together. --MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've now found out about del-batch etc from Courcelles (who nuked someone's contribs while I was just finishing off blocking the vandal). (I found the incident via CSD - I think Courcelles saw it at AIV.) It's at the bottom of the list - labelled Mass destruction. You may already know about this, but it could be handy if you don't. Peridon (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I love the name "mass destruction"! Right now I'm just doing RfPPs and obvious page-deletions, but I'll probably get around to the tough stuff eventually. A member of my family told me, "You used to rescue pages; when you became an admin you went over to the dark side!" I still enjoy article rescue, but I guess there is some truth in that. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Blue Elephant

Thanks for deleting the former page The Blue Elephant. I don't know if you have a way to check, but I didn't make a note of the page that it used to redirect to, and now I can't remember what it was. If you can check, can you let me know? Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: That's a good thought; I also was thinking a hatnote would be a good idea. The target page was Khan Kluay. That film was released in the U.S. as The Blue Elephant. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jane Trahey

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note

Hi MelanieN, long time no see! :) I just wanted to note. Hannah Thomas-Garner, the missing girl from Ashland, was found and is safe with her father. You were right, she was a run-a-way all this time. You can read the update by NBC News here. Cheers, CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, CookieMonster, and I'm glad that story had a happy ending. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

108.25.60.172

This is likely to be the same vandal with a different IP. He's been causing trouble on previous articles, including my userpage. I think its safe to assume that he'll return to cause mischief after only two days of his ban, so might I ask if you can either extend the block or identify his IP and prevent it from constantly changing it (as he has a way to evade bans by consistently changing his IP address). Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Jon. Yes, I have identified at least two other IPs that are obviously the same person. Do you know why they attacked your page? Have you had previous interaction with them, possibly under another IP? We might as well collect as many of the IP addresses as we can.
Since I have only been an administrator for a month or so, I have asked a couple of more experienced admins for help in dealing with them. Unfortunately per Wikipedia rules we can't ban an IP indefinitely - plus that wouldn't really help, since the IP address keeps changing. I think you are probably right that we haven't seen the last of them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
He did so without any provocation or reason, and even my reasons, despite being civil ones, only lead him to perform vandalism further, even as far as to cause trouble on my talk page. I'm sure its most likely because he started vandalizing a page regarding an airplane incident in Taiwan around January. Also, while I do understand the rules on Wikipedia, you are aware that he'll resume causing further problems once his ban has been lifted. The only way to prevent it from happening is to lock pages from IP users from performing future vandalisms, including on registered userpages like my own. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Which article was that? It might help me to identify additional IP addresses. The more of them we know, the better we can deal with him. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This is what started it all. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, that gives me a fourth IP address! --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I told you, right? I knew he would change his IP address just to cause problems again and is pretty much targeting me right now. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Let me know if any other IP addresses turn up. I'm going to see if a range block is possible, and for that we need to know as many of the addresses as we can. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe this one is the same vandal, different IP. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, he doesn't want to stop vandalizing his own talk page like a difficult person he obviously is... hope you and the others are dealing with the matter at hand. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is crazy. I have semiprotected your talk page while we sort this out. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I know its against Wikipedia rule, but because of his active vandal spree by consistently changing his IP address, I have a feeling that he needs to be seriously dealt with. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
A range that includes most of those IPs has been blocked for three days. Let me know if you see any signs of them returning, and I will either deal with them individually or ask for the range block to be extended. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks in advance. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft

Hi MelanieN - the reason why I tagged my draft (Draft:Shooting of Tony Robinson) for deletion is because their is already an article in the main space with similar Information. Its silly to have a draft and mainspave article about the same thing. You probably have a good reason for removing it though. What is your explanation? :-) Cheers, CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, CookieMonster. I removed it because the article was just tagged "delete" with no reason given. However, now that I know you are the one requesting deletion, and you are the only author, I have tagged it with the appropriate reason: WP:CSD G7, "deletion requested by the only author." Someone will probably delete it shortly. It looked like a good article, I hope you will contribute to the other existing article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@CookieMonster755: What is the title of the existing article? Might this be a worthwhile redirect? --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The name of the article that my draft was about was the Shooting of Tony Robinson. They created the main space article after I created my draft article. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see that article has less information and fewer references than yours did. You should consider adding your information to the existing article, rather than throwing all that work away. Your draft has been deleted, but if you want to retrieve that information and references so you can put it into the other article, I can restore it for you. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
No need to restore the article MelanieN, as much as I appreciate your sincere offer. I will expand the article with the references I used on the draft, sense I still have them in my history tab. Thank you for your help. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Village of LJ

Hey Melanie - you may be interested in this, if you hadn't seen it yet. Have not made up my mind about it yet.... Dohn joe (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. I tried to source it, but got nowhere; maybe you will have better luck. I expressed my opinion at the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Eaea2014

Melanie, you posted a username notice at User talk:Eaea2014#Your username, back when you weren't an administrator, and the organization has once again written an article about itself. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: Thanks for the heads-up. I posted a warning/explanation on their userpage. I warned them that they could be blocked but I didn't actually block them at this time; if they do any more editing under that username they should probably be blocked. I also warned them that their article may not meet GNG. I didn't research the organization for notability myself and will leave that to others, but my hunch is the article will not be with us long. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ika Hügel-Marshall

The article Ika Hügel-Marshall you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ika Hügel-Marshall for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rosiestep -- Rosiestep (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

PP

Hi MelanieN, how are the new tools working out for you? I noticed you recent semi-protected the article SHB Champasak F.C.. Don't forget to add {{pp-vandalism}} when you do so to let other editors (namely IPs) know it's been protected and why perhaps they cannot edit it. The seeming status quo is to use the small version and the expiry so a bot removes it when the PP expires: e.g. {{pp-vandalism|small=yes|expiry=March 14, 2015}} . Cheers, Mkdwtalk 04:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right, I haven't been doing this. I'll try to get in the habit. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Question: That template displays as "this article is semi-protected." Is there a separate template for full protection? --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
There are a few different colour locks. They come from the type. {{pp-vandalism}} is silver which as you know are usually short-term. Gold are usually blp and longterm The lock might change based upon the expiry. Saw the Paul McCartney lock and its gold but other BLP locks are silver sometimes. A list can be found at Wikipedia:Protection policy#Available templates. Mkdwtalk 04:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - and it looks like you went around and added the locks to all of my recent protections, so thanks for that too. The Paul McCartney lock is for full protection, maybe that's why it is gold. --MelanieN (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually I see what happened. There was already a semi-blp template on the page, from some previous protection. My protection must have activated it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
(stalking) I suspect the template defaults to semi because (as you're doubtless aware) that is far and away the most common type of protection due to vandalism or POV pushers. Full protection is comparatively rare. The rarest, in my experience, is full protection of a talk page, which - incredibly - Talk:Danish pastry got hit with after a severe case of WP:LAME by editors who really ought to have known better. Good call on Paul McCartney by the way - wait until you get a revert war over musical genres, they're "fun". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Some of the would-be edit warriors were unhappy with my action, but I'm really just trying to keep them out of trouble. It's amazing how passionate people can get about things. At least "musical genre" is a more understandable thing to feel passionately about than (say) "yogurt vs. yoghurt". Thanks for your comments at McCartney. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks like when the full-protection expired the article went back to fully open instead of its previous state of indefinitely semi-protected (per the log), which has inadvertently meant the edit war has started all over again :-( ... I have changed the infobox to what consensus was going towards (and I will back it up with quotations from book sources that are present in the article prose if I really really really have to) but you might want to consider re-applying the semi-protection that was on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems odd to me

Hello M. I need to ask why you protected the The Sound of Music (film) article. In light of the fact that there was already an ongoing discussion here Talk:The Sound of Music (film) in which three editors were in agreement and one was displaying a text book case of WP:IDONTHEAR. Add to that the fact that the RFPP was declined by another admin before you acted the protection IMO does not make much sense. Now I realize that it also does no harm. OTOH it isn't going to change anything either. I apologize if any of this causes offense as that is not my intent. MarnetteD|Talk 20:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Marnette, and thanks for your note. Yes, there was and is a discussion, but it wasn't clear to me if all the parties were going to respect the consensus, or if one or more were going to continue edit warring. In this kind of situation I occasionally use brief full protection in the hope that it will allow a little more time for discussion and prevent the need to block anyone. BTW the other administrator later reached the same conclusion, that full protection was needed; they were on their way to impose it when I beat them to it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your note and explanation. Thanks also for the link to Coffee's talk page. Although C mentions protection it looks like WZp wouldn't drop the WP:STICK and got blocked instead. Since the block is longer that the page protection does it still serve a useful purpose? No worries if you want to leave it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: I checked with the other admin and they agreed we probably don't need it right now. I have lifted it. Let me or (better) Coffee know if the problem resumes. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I just got back onWikiP and noticed what was going on. Thanks for the update, your efforts and your time. MarnetteD|Talk 21:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: Did we speak too soon? Looks like someone immediately re-added the disputed material. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought about that as well. However, they also made a post on the talk page (it should be noted that it was their 1st post there and they had not taken part in the earlier discussion) which I responded to and they haven't made the edit again. Also they have not posted on the talk page again. Based on that one post, and this is just my opinion so I could be wrong, the new editor may have felt that WZb was being mistreated and wanted to give them some support. I can understandable that. It is always hard to keep emotions out of editing and stick to policy and guidelines. I only succeed at it from time to time. I often return to read User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior when things get too out of whack. I am glad that you have the article on your watchlist and will trust in whatever decision you make should things go pear shaped again. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia question/San Diego.

Hello Melanie, I have spoken with Harry Mitchell in England, I live in Chula Vista and am wondering if it is possible for you to review an issue I have with Commons. I have asked Harry to contact you, he reviewed a DYK article on the Tijuana cross-border terminal created by User Keizers which was approved in November. I provided most of information, started the project in 1990, and have worked with both Juan Vargas (current U.S. Congressman) and Ron Roberts (current Supervisor) on this specific project. Would appreciate being able to talk to you. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rnieders. I do remember when Keizers wrote that article, although I don't think I had any input on it, and I haven't been following it. Just now I looked at the discussion at Commons about the images. If that is your issue, I cannot be of any help to you; I don't have any experience with Commons and know very little about that project. I do understand some of the concerns they expressed, about you and your work on this article. They advised that your best approach to this would be to use WP:OTRS - that is, to email Wikipedia - in order to establish your identity and your right to the images. OTRS has multiple contact points; the area you are interested in might come under Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing. If you want, you can send me an email about this, but as I said, I probably can't do much for you. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
General comment, after looking at some of your earlier correspondence about these images: When you write to OTRS, don't send them a wall of text. Leave out all the history. Just get to the point. Say something like "These images uploaded by me were deleted at Commons. (give them a URL link to the Commons deletion discussion.) But in fact they were created by me and I have a right to use them. What evidence do I need to submit to prove this?" End of message, full stop. The more you say, the harder it is for the recipient to figure out exactly what you are saying - or what you want Wikipedia to do. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, I do write too much. I did ask the OTRS reviewer Jeevan Jones what I could do, he asked me to use the permissions template, but then that was attacked by two Administrators, one of which was Jameslwoodward who actually deleted the images in December and now implied no one legitimate would use a Hotmail account. Faced with that, Jeevan Jones stated to me that nothing will change the outcome. You are the eyes and hears of Wikipedia here, this is a high profile project, Ellin Beltz claims that this is a minor regional airport and before that, that she had extensive airport experience and that only a few companies could produce these images. I do not know what airports she worked at, but creating line drawings being limited to a few companies? That is why I offered to have Keizers physically review them. User Ww2censor reviewed the dialogue in December and concluded AGF, but that was reject by Ellin Beltz, and then other reasons were added such as self promotion and out of scope. Removing my name is no problem, I am retired, have nothing to gain from this other than aggravation. Ellin Beltz specifically took sentences from discussions with Keizers as well as Stefan2's deletion request out of context to influence other Administrators. She stated that the images “originally claimed as fair use, but removed from Wikipedia due to false claims and now claimed as own work. I too could dig out old floppies from 1980s projects and make copies." That is outrageous especially in view of the dozens of newspaper references I submitted in the article and the feature story in the Wall Street Journal. The fact that I presented the project to Bob Filner in 1990 and also before the U.S. State Department in 2002. Again, too long, Jeevan Jones posted this case on the noticeboard, no one responded. I was encouraged to tell the story on Wikipedia, it passed the DYK review and now this? I grew up here, Juan Vargas knows me, the current Mayor of Chula Vista Mary Salas, knows me I am not hiding nor using other people's work, the project here is too high profile to hide. I would appreciate your help. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, OK. So you have already done all the appropriate things and gotten a reply from the appropriate people. That reply was: No, we can't use your images. That sounds pretty definitive. It's coming from the people who understand Wikipedia's policies and what is required for a picture to be here. You feel that you have been misunderstood and misrepresented, and naturally you are angry about this. But my advice is: I think you need to take "No" for an answer. There is really nothing more you can do. It wouldn't help for you show your originals to Keizers, or to me. It won't help to keep asking more people. It's time to accept the fact that the article is not going to include your images, even though you want them to be there. Even without them, it's still a very long, very detailed article, and the information in the article is pretty much exactly what you want it to say.
Certainly the project is high profile and deserves an article here. No one is trying to "hide" the project or delete the article. It just isn't going to have the illustrations you wanted to include. My advice, if you really want this whole story to be told, your way, images and all: create a web page. Then you will have total control of it and you can do whatever you want with it. Here, Wikipedia's policies - including their policies on copyright - have to be followed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Melanie for responding so quickly. I have taken your advice to heart, I made mistakes in uploading the images, it is part of the learning process and I can accept my errors, but there were some disturbing actions taken in this case. Ellin Beltz is a senior Administrator, the issue of the images was never about being out of scope or com:advert, she accused me of falsely claiming other people's work and then went as far as asking "all other editors to consider COM:PRP." She took parts of discussions I had with Keizers to support her allegations, while the full text showed the exact opposite. She broke the basic rule of AGF and worse, acted in bad faith. She is the expert, I am the novice, who should be held to a higher standard? I was told to submit to the OTRS process to prove that rnieders and Ralph Nieders were the same, but the process was not honest as the decision was made to exclude ALL the images based on scope and com:advert, so why was I told to go through the OTRS process? And the very person who suggested that was the very person who deleted the images and then denied the undeletion request, Jameslwoodward and judging from Ellin Beltz correspondence with "Jim", they appear to be friends. How is that objective and transparent? There is also the issue that the images went through the DYK review process and not a single Administrator or editor red-flagged or claimed the images were out of scope or com:advert. That came as the argument of fraud weakened. The images that were selected by Stefan2 (only a few days after they were uploaded) for deletion under fair use and then deleted by my request, the images Ellin Beltz accused me of falsely claiming as my own, I submitted those to the OTRS reviewer Jeevan Jones, they were not the same but the accusations continued. What is Wikimedia's policy when Administrators knowingly act in bad faith? Had I been told that the images were out of scope during the DYK review process 7 months ago, no problem, I would have accepted that, but all this stemmed from an accusation and dishonest use of parts of a discussion with Keizers, that is a dangerous precedent. It means that a few Administrators can hijack the Wikimedia/Commons process and make it their own and dispense justice as they see fit. That is what I object to. I appreciate you taking the time to read the article. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Rnieders: I understand your frustration. But the process was normal, and the decision was made by people who understand Wikipedia's requirements for images far better than you or I ever will - and certainly better than whoever did your DYK review. DYK reviewers are usually just regular editors, not even administrators, and they are not highly trained in image policy. Wikipedia's requirements are sometimes stricter than what you or I would consider common sense, but there are legal reasons for that. I strongly advise you to let this go. Nothing is going to restore your images. Nothing is going to come of your complaints about how the issue was handled. And if you keep on posting your complaint about these administrators on multiple pages all over Wikipedia, sooner or later somebody is going to realize that your accusations of bad faith amount to a personal attack, and they are going to warn you to either cut it out or get blocked. I do understand that your anger about this comes on top of your bitterness about other people taking credit for your idea (yes, I read the article in the Reader), and I sympathize. But look on the bright side: there is a nice long article here at Wikipedia, and it contains all the information you wanted it to contain. And the terminal, after decades of work, IS being constructed. You can take pride in that. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Your advice does carry weight and the fact that you took the time in responding in a logical and sincere manner. Thank you for your kind words. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

When A3 applies

Hi. I'm responding to your edit summary re Muhammad Zaman (politician)‎‎. Can you show me where consensus has been reached that the statement in WP:CSD A3, as well as in the speedy deletion notification template for A3, that templates don't count as "content" for purposes of A3 makes an exception for infobox templates? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Largo. Thanks for your note, but I don't understand your question. My edit summary said that A3 does not apply to this article. Does your comment here mean you think it DOES qualify for A3? I see that you didn't add the A3 tag; it was Wikicology who tagged it A3; you just retitled the article. I do agree that the contents of this article are probably a failed attempt at using an infobox; are you saying that means it meets A3? Please clarify.
BTW now that I look again at A3, I see that the sentence about infoboxes is very confusingly worded, so we may be reading it differently. It says "this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox". I read that as meaning that a page with only an infobox should not be tagged A3 (i.e., the criterion does not apply). Do you read it as saying a page with only an infobox CAN be tagged A3? Help me understand this. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That's right, I did think it qualified for A3, but now I see that indeed I had, after reading that "template tags" don't count as content, missed seeing the thing I came here to ask you for: the acceptance of infoboxes as content for purposes of determining that A3 doesn't apply. My apologies, I get it now. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Certainly the CSD categories are confusing. Being a fairly new admin, I probably pay more attention than most to the "letter of the law". Thanks for clearing that up. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Horns (but not of a dilemma)

You might be interested to catch up on my page, Timtrent's page and Draft talk:Atlantic Horns. Quite informative on copyright release and OTRS too. (All we need now is someone saying the damn thing isn't notable after all...) There's also a possibly interesting bit of IAR concerning a deliberate well-intentioned hoax (that's now in my user space) down in the Mr Grimes thread. Peridon (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll check it out, thanks. But isn't "well-intentioned hoax" an oxymoron? --MelanieN (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Not in this case... Peridon (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Got it. As I explained at your talk page, this is a common exercise by academics - who always wind up surprised to find that Wikipedia is far more reliable than they expected. Good on you, for being one of the people that keep it that way. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, he is using it as a 'don't believe it just because...' rather than a 'Wikipedia is rubbish' thing. Anyway, I've added a line to /links about educational stuff. Peridon (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know. He assumed, as a lot of people do, that Wikipedia is garbage just like the rest of the internet - and that "anyone can edit" means there are no controls, no supervision. I think you handled it very well, giving him his page back but not in article space. And I suspect he learned something.
As for the OTRS and copyright stuff, I read it through. Thanks, but it's all still kind of a mystery me.--MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

CSD Log

I may have jumped the gun when I requested the protection of my CSD log. It won't let TWINKLE add pages I tag for speedy deletion, so could you please undo the protection? Thanks and sorry for the trouble. - Amaury (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I wondered about that. Will do. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Shitburger

If you have a moment: if you came across this article in GAN, what would your comments be? TIA. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 20:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@ATinySliver: Thanks, nice work - you have done a lot of work on this! I'm not really qualified to make GAN comments; I am not a regular reviewer there. Maybe User:Ritchie333 could give you some feedback. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Whether or not you go for GA on this, I think there must be a marvelous DYK hook lurking in there somewhere! It could be as simple as "Did you know... that a poor quality hamburger may be referred to as a shitburger?" Or something more elaborate. I can nominate it for you, if you prefer not to nominate it yourself. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Initial thoughts are, is "Shitburger" the WP:COMMONNAME based on sources, does it take 6 or 7 pages to cite one fact, at 3.5K prose it's a bit small for a GA, so it probably needs a little work before passing. Now, Cirt is usually well up for improving titles of this ilk to GA (see Fuck (film) and Fuck It, We'll Do It Live for instance), so you could always twist his arm. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for your input! I'll check in with Cirt as recommended. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 19:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

David Bennett

Hi Melanie. Here are a couple of snippets about Bennett's opera days. I though I'd leave them here instead of trying to add them to the draft directly.

This one is subscription only:

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore! I'll see what I can do with these. I see he performed Capulet as a bass; my other source said he was a baritone, so I'll have to reconcile that. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, the critic called him a bass because the role was written for a bass, but baritones can and often do sing many bass roles. I wouldn't worry about that. His other role above, Eugene Onegin, is definitely a baritone role. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Naomi Sager

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Go team rescue! I had some good news today, a jiffy bag with an EP from Kat Wright and the Indomitable Soul Band (who, as I've mentioned before, I rescued from CSD) with a hand written note saying "Thank You!" Airmail from Vermont to England! Little things like that make all the hard slog of finding sources and fixing up articles worthwhile. ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow, look at you rake it in! First coffee and cookies biscuits, now EPs! Way to go! And gratitude is always nice - tangible or not. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for protecting all the cricket articles I requested protection on. There was a big controversy in a match earlier, and, as with lots of controversies in sport, it seems people responds by vandalising Wikipedia articles about it/about the people involved. Thank you for helping sort this out by protecting the pages, keep up the good work. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've been there, I know how much protection can help. I trust three days will be enough for the individual articles; for the knockout series I protected through the end of the series (I think!). --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Congrats

Tu-tu-ruu,

Congrats Melanie for being a sysop... I wanna go around and spam MELANIE IS OUR QUEEN, but sadly this will only make maintaining articles for you much work.

Only joking... Enjoy your sysop, Captain.

On internet nobody know you're just an IP...

197.130.30.170 (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved from top of page

Dear melanin.....I am Diya sharda Phd Shaivism.....wanted to inform you that you have mentioned about forms of Lord Shiva. Yes! Lord Shiva has forms but no avatars. Avatars are accepted in Vaishnavism but not in Shaivism ....since, avatars are born and die but Shiva is supreme and is beyond death. However, he has forms just as energy has forms ie: kinetic, potential, mechanica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordshiva1980 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You must be thinking of someone else. I have not commented about forms of Lord Shiva. --MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Hi MelanieN, I see that you've been answering the requests at WP:RFPP. However, you have only been dealing with increases in protection level. Would you mind looking at my request at WP:RFRPL? I made the request and it hasn't been replied to all day. I'm contacting you because you seem to be active on that page. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I had a look. I see that you did try to contact the protecting administrator, but he is not very active on Wikipedia right now. I will unprotect it for you. From looking at your draft, I'm not sure it would survive AfD, but it deserves a shot at article-hood. I think unprotect-and-paste is a better way to go than deleting the redirect page, because the history should be preserved. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the help. Would you mind telling me why you believe it won't survive AfD? There has been pretty significant coverage of him (or at least his controversy) in the media, as can be seen by the articles I cite. I'm quite convinced that notability isn't the issue here. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That was just an offhand reaction, because generally Wikipedia doesn't find tempests in the social media to be all that worthy of encyclopedia articles. But I didn't evaluate your sources in depth, and I actually don't know how I would "vote" if I did. I saw that you do have a couple of "real" sources, i.e, Independent Reliable Sources, but I didn't look to see what they say. If my reaction bothers you, I'll take a little closer look and let you know how I would probably "vote" based on the draft as it is. But my opinion doesn't mean much. It doesn't mean you shouldn't create the article. And there's always the chance that other people will help you to expand and improve it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see you do have two citations that would meet the requirement for "significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources." Namely, the CBC article and the BBC article. So it would probably pass at AfD just as it is. I do suggest that you find sources for the rest of the article - for the biographical information about him. Pretty much the only thing sourced is the controversy. How do you know where he was born and educated? Give the source. And include a little more information and a link or two for the Big Brother appearance. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Your initial reaction was fine. I just thought that perhaps you saw something wrong with the article that I didn't and that would be cause for its deletion. I appreciate the suggestions and I'll work on sourcing more of the article. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Lift (force)

Hi,

Can I ask you to reconsider your refusal to semi-protect Talk:Lift (force)? This has been a very long-running dispute and several people are trying to resolve it sensibly. This IP editor has a history of far more serious abuse than anybody else and it is not going to help if they are allowed to produce more of the same. If you take a closer look at the RfC and the discussion on mediation, you will see that the aim is to take the dispute to the associated mediation page, where the IP editor will not be prevented from commenting but will at least be managed by the mediator. So, with respect, this is not about blocking an opponent but about focusing on the issue at hand. If you are still in doubt, could I ask you to touch base with Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) who is a highly experienced editor and has recently come in to try and get this resolved sensibly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Thanks for your note. My decision was mainly based on your claim that the IP was "flaming" people. The links you provided gave me the feeling that, if this is a flame war, it is two-way; and if it isn't a flame war, it is a content dispute. WP:Protection policy states that protection can be applied to "Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions". Also that semi-protection should not be applied in the case of edit warring when some of the participants are auto-confirmed and some are not. Specifically, semi-protection is not to be used to privilege the auto-confirmed users over the IPs.
With that said, I realize that another admin did see fit to protect the page earlier, so maybe the IP's edits were more clearly disruptive then than they are now. I still don't see enough disruption to warrant protection. But I will withdraw my "decline" note and let some other administrator make the decision. Meanwhile, I suggest you keep in mind that you should not use the talk page to attack or criticize the IP editor, even when you feel they are in the wrong - and that you will make your own case stronger if you don't descend to their level. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. It is a complex situation and I will heed your advice as best I can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Steelpillow about the IP. There are two parts to the controversy. There is a content dispute, running over months, among registered editors. Some of the regular editors have requested formal mediation, and the other regular editors have agreed. The regular editors in the past have usually been civil; any civility violations have been minor. The unregistered editor has not been civil, and has repeatedly accused the registered editors of lying and sometimes of hounding and harassment. I can see logic either in semi-protecting both the article page and the talk page, or in leaving both open, but in the latter case, I would suggest a zero-tolerance policy to future civility violations by the IP. If you want to let another administrator decide, that is fine. I just ask that any other administrator take into account that attempts to resolve a tense content dispute are being frustrated by conduct by one IP editor, and that something be done about the IP, either semi-protection, or blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
In cases where disruption is being caused by a single IP editor, and that editor has a stable address (not a dynamic IP), then the usual course would be a series of warnings on their talk page (with diffs included), followed by a request for a block if disruption continues. IPs cannot be blocked indefinitely, but they can certainly be blocked temporarily if they are disruptive. Semi-protection can be used in the short term, but in the long run a more targeted approach seems more appropriate to me. But you are the ones in the trenches on this particular subject, and I am not; do what you think best. --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The IP is dynamic and apparently single-purpose. Once the present dispute is resolved, their reason for coming here should disappear. Hence semi-protection seems more useful in the present case. Should I have said that in my request? I thought it was getting a bit long and personal as it was. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 23:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I see that your request is still unanswered. Maybe it would help if you changed it to say "a single-purpose account with a dynamic IP" instead of just "an IP". --MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Source regarding BIO of living person

Dear MelanieN. I know you are an expert at this, but would Daily Mail be a reliable source for Bio of a living person? I added a category, "Category:German people of Austrian descent", because an articl in the Daily Mail about the person said she was born in Germany, and had Austrian descent. Do you think Daily Mail (UK) would be an okay source for the category I added to the article? Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, CookieMonster, thanks for your note! The Daily Mail is generally considered a Reliable Source. But in a case like this, it might depend on where they are getting their information; they are an English paper, not a German or Austrian one, and their information might be second- or third-hand. Here is a question I use to evaluate things like newspaper reports: "Who says so, and how do they know?" "Who says so" doesn't mean "what newspaper"; it means, "where did the reporter get their information"? A proper newspaper report will attribute its facts to a source, which might be a named person, or an anonymous source like "a high-level administration official", or the person they are talking about - it should be possible to tell where the paper is getting its information. "How do they know" refers to the source the reporter is using - is it someone in a position to know what they are talking about?
Now that's a generic answer. If you want I will look at the specific article or edit you have in mind. I gather this information is controversial and that is why you are asking? If you give me a link I will look at the specific case you are asking about. As for adding categories, you should not add an article to a category unless the article already has information that the person belongs in that category. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Excalibur

Greetings.. have blocked the page "Excalibur". There is a user who does not respect the discussions and continues to filibuster. Discussions are respected including regulations wikipedia ... otherwise it becomes censorship--151.44.172.242 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! If you are the same anonymous user who has been edit warring at the article Excalibur - you are the reason the page has been protected three times by two different administrators. The history of the page shows repeated attempts to insert your version into the article, using edit summaries filled with ALL CAPS. Wikipedia policy is that you should discuss at the talk page and reach consensus; I see no discussions at the talk page in more than a month. If you have tried the talk page in the past, but have failed to convince other people that your edits are correct, then you should not make them. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by one person insisting on their own way. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you are very distracted. The discussion is "Etymology (4)." I understand the consensus in the discussion but a user behavior and vandalism obstructionist .. anyway just read the discussion and shows the changes effectively ... bye--151.18.42.231 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that discussion - from more than a month ago. You argued your point repeatedly (note that the use of CAPITAL LETTERS does not make your argument any stronger), but consensus did not agree with you. It's time to stop trying to insert this material against consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Pepper

Hi Melanie, just to let you know that I moved Sam Pepper to Draft:Sam Pepper, but I think I've messed it up. There was already a draft article there, so I deleted it, moved this one over, then undeleted. But of course that meant I had merged the article history with the draft history, and when I tried to unmerge, it didn't work. I have to go offline now, so I'll look at this again tomorrow, and try to work out whether and how to fix it, or whether to leave it. (I actually wish I had never commented on it!). I wanted to leave you this note in case you notice and wonder what happened. Best, Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've unmerged the histories, so things are back to the way they were, and I've restored the redirect at Sam Pepper to List of Big Brother 11 housemates (UK)#Sam. I didn't restore Mark's protection, because I didn't want to undo your unprotection (but protection might be the best thing at this point). Eventhorizon is working on his draft at User:Eventhorizon51/Sam Pepper. Whew! Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. At this point the protection is probably no longer necessary, but I'll watchlist the redirect page, and if anyone tries to mess with it I will restore the protection. --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Lawrence F Jindra's Biography

Competence Versus Notability Yesterday you deleted the biography Lawrence F. Jindra, MD (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_F._Jindra&action=edit&redlink=1) without providing a reason. The editors who voted to delete the article claimed that competency does not equal notability and one claimed that Dr. Jindra did not meet the criteria for an Academic Physician. I read the criteria, for which this editor provided a link, and do not understand how he or she came to this conclusion for the following reasons:

  • Dr. Jindra is, or has been a Fellow of several professional organizations including the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American College of Surgeons, and he is a Diplomate of the American Board of Ophthalmology. There are several others but, when I included those in a previous iteration of his biography one editor marked that bio for deletion claiming that it was too promotional.
  • Dr. Jindra is also a published author of a book entitled American Hero
  • Dr. Jindra has published several articles, indexed by the National Library of Medicine, as well as over 100 peer-reviewed abstracts at national and international meetings. The impact of his publications resulted in him being invited to speak and/or perform live surgery around the world because he was the first pioneer for the use of the most advanced treatment for Glaucoma (Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty). I had included this information in a previous iteration of his bio, with verifiable references, because a different editor told me that the article required more third-party, verifiable references. That article was also marked for deletion because a different editor said it was too promotional
  • Dr. Jindra was a White House Fellow. If editors reviewing his biography do not understand how notable this is then they should educate themselves before recommending a deletion.

Inconsistent Direction by Wikipedia as it relates to Lawrence F. Jindra's Biography I have worked very hard on this biography. I am not attempting to promote, advertise or market this physician. When I first submitted it one editor said, needs more verifiable, third party references. I added more reliable, verifiable references. The next editor said, too many references (cite kill) so I scaled back and even asked for help. I received help from a few editors and resubmitted. Then, the next editor said that it was promotional and to avoid the use of Peacock terms. So, I re-wrote it, being very careful to do exactly that. The article was then marked for speedy deletion claiming it was promotional. He then proceeded to delete the article. When I asked him to send it to me so that I could continue to work on it he never responded and did not send the article. So, I wrote another version and modeled it after an Ophthalmologist's published biography on Wikipedia to ensure an that it was of an encyclopedic tone. The next editor, however, claimed that it was not written in an encyclopedic tone. I wrote to her, and provided a link to the already published biography after which I modeled my article and asked for help. She responded saying, I didn't edit that article and articles can always be deleted after they've been accepted but offered no help. I re-wrote the article yet again. The same editor who had previously marked it for speedy deletion, declined it, claiming the subject does not meet the requirements of notability. I was told, by a Wikipedian editor, that no, one, editor is supposed to review the same article twice to avoid bias. So, this particular editor has violated Wikipedia's own code of conduct, not once but twice. Who is providing over-site to this editor who don't seem to hold himself to the same ethical standards required of contributors to Wikipedia, such as myself? How can this editor be granted the authority to decline, delete or even comment on an article which I have tried to publish by following all the rules of Wikipedia and suggestions of all the editors involved (disparate as they were) when he, himself, doesn't follow the rules? In any case, I re-wrote the article again, doing exactly what was asked of me and it was declined in under one minute. How can an editor honestly claim to have given the article a proper review in less than a minute? This started to feel like a witch hunt so, I stopped working on it because there seems to be no standardized review process and a lack of understanding on the part of several of the editors who reviewed the biography. Who is providing over-site to these editors who don't understand the notability of:

  • being a White House Fellow. There are thousands of applicants every year and only 10-15 get selected.
  • being the Chief and now Chief Emeritus of the top ranking hospital in Long Island
  • Founding, directing and now being the Director Emeritus of the Glaucoma Consultation Unit at the Northport Veteran’s Affairs Medical Center in order to provide eye care to Veteran's who did not have it previously
  • being an Assistant clinical professor at one of the top ranking Universities in the United States (Columbia)

How am I to educate editors on Wikipedia of these things? Should they not already know it if they have the authority to question it?

What Next? Dr. Jindra is far more than a "competent professional" and any editor who knows anything about what he has accomplished, and given back, on an international, national and local level would not argue with this. But, that is the problem. The editors who are reviewing his biography don't know, provide inconsistent direction, seem to have no over-site, and violate their own code of conduct. So, please tell me? What should I do next? Kimvale1025 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kimvale1025. I sympathize with your frustration. It can be very frustrating, when you are trying to write an article about someone you firmly believe in, only to be told they don't belong in an international encyclopedia. But Wikipedia has very high standards for articles about physicians, specifically so that we won't have an article about every one of the 800,000 physicians in the United States. There are two possible ways a physician can qualify for an article here. One is WP:GNG, the General Notability Guideline, which applies to any subject, not just physicians. It means that there has been a lot of coverage ABOUT THE SUBJECT in newspapers, books, etc. Very, very few physicians meet that standard. The more common way of evaluating physicians is WP:ACADEMIC, which allows us to have articles about people who are demonstrated as "thought leaders in their field" - for example, by writing journal articles which are cited hundreds of time in other journal articles, or by being a full professor/head of a department at a major university, or by receiving a MAJOR prize like the Lasker Award. Being a published author is not enough. Being an assistant clinical professor (basically a doctor in private practice who teaches a class or two at the university) is not enough. Being a White House Fellow, or a fellow of various professional societies, is not enough. In this case, we put it to a week-long community discussion, specifically so that it wouldn't be just one or two people deciding on inclusion; the decision would be based on input from any Wikipedian, particularly those who have an interest in medicine or biography. My "job" (actually I am a volunteer, as is everyone who edits Wikipedia) was not to make a separate evaluation of Dr. Jindra; it was to determine what the community's consensus was. The consensus of the community was that the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Nothing you have told me here makes me think that was a mistake. I really don't see anything you can "do next" to change the situation; you have tried multiple times already. I'm sorry; I know you have worked hard on this article. And I'm sure Dr. Jindra is a fine physician. But not every fine physician can have an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, MelanieN. Thank you very much for your thoughtful and prompt response. I would like to take a a few days to think about some of the things you've discussed and write a more complete response. I believe that Dr. Jindra's notability is real and can be verified. As a new contributor to Wikipedia, perhaps I didn't highlight this in the best way. For example, you mention that being a White House Fellow isn't enough. But, the fact is that while there are 1000’s chiefs/chairs of medical departments at any one time across the USA, There are only 15 White House Fellows at any one time in the USA, as compared to 32 Rhodes Scholars per year. These Fellows come from all walks of life. The program started in 1965. In 1992 there were about 500 alumni and Dr. Jindra was the 11th doctor selected in almost 30 years of the program (all others being non-physicians). There are other points similar to this that I need to think through, highlight, write in an encyclopedic tone and reference appropriately. When I write my next draft would it be best to do it in my namespace, as a draft, and seek the help of other editors? Kimvale1025 (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that would be best. If you like, I can restore the article and put it in your namespace (that's called userfying) so that you don't have to start all over. I should warn you, though: your argument that White House Fellows are notable is not likely to convince anyone. If you can find Independent Reliable Sources writing about him being a White House Fellow, then add them to the article and they might help. But simply arguing that they ought to be notable - no. As I said above: notability is not about the person, or how good we think they are, or how important we think they are. It's about whether independent third parties have written about them. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. If you take a look at this article: White House Fellows, you will see that only a few - somewhere between none and three - out of each class of White House Fellows end up with Wikipedia articles (i.e. bluelinks). --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Ciesiulka

Bryan Ciesiulka is in the starting lineup and playing right now for Saint Louis FC which means he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Can you restore the article that you deleted a few weeks ago? – Michael (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Bushue as well. He came on in the second half. – Michael (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I am seeking advice from those who know more about football than I do. I will let you know what I find out. --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm one of those who know about the game. And of course I was the one who nominated both of these for deletion because they didn't meet the guidelines then, but they do now. – Michael (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Both articles and their talk pages are now restored. Thanks for your patience. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
More evidence that we shouldn't be wasting our trying to delete articles shortly before the season starts for players signed to fully professional teams. Nfitz (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Baumgartner

Can you move this deleted article to draftspace so that it can be improved in anticipation to his inevitable appearance for the fully professional Real Monarchs. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm away from my computer right now, will do it when I get home in a couple of hours. Is userspace ok? MelanieN alt (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nfitz: The article is at User:Nfitz/Marvin Baumgartner. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • He made his professional debut already - see [3]. I can't seem to move it out of my User space without creating a redirect. Can you move it and it's original talk page back to Main Space without a redirect in my User space? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nfitz: Yes, I can do that. Or (for future reference) you can move it yourself, and then request that the redirect be deleted per WP:U1 - request for speedy deletion of something in your own userspace. Oops, one problem: I just took a look at the article in your userspace, and I don't see the information about his debut. You should add a sentence saying that before it is moved to mainspace; otherwise it could just get deleted again. Let me know when you have done that, and then I will move it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
a) I don't need to add anything about his debut before it is restored, stop being so unnecessarily bureaucratic about this.. b) Don't put articles in my userspace - I had asked it to be moved to draft space where it belonged. c) even if I U1 the redirect, I still can't restore the talk page that also was deleted d) I had added information about his debut before you posted this, looking at the timestamps. e) Next time can you use some WP:COMMONSENSE when reviewing the nominations of these OC editors who are so desperate to waste everone's time deleting an article that anyone paying attention to the sport can see will clearly be recreated soon. Nfitz (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I have moved it. I also copy-edited it a little before moving it. The article I deleted did not have a talk page.[4] --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

New request

Sir excuse me

please visit Battle of sarsa and edit its inappropriate content.

In a book named Banda Bahadur and Sikh sovereignty page number 77

It was not battle of sarsa it was battle of bachhora sahib The content there is inappropriate because it has been written that Sikhs destroyed while crossing the river but the above source claims that Guru and 42 Sikhs still managed to cross the river so plz edit wherever it is necessary to edit Ak107839 (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your request. But you should put it on the talk page for the article you want to be changed. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Universum Studio

studio appears to be real – Sorry, but this ist a hoax. Did you visit the Website? There only exists a mobile phone number, and the "Founder" and "Key man" has an "outlook.de" email. Its also told that the company ist registered in the German Trade Register (Amtsgericht Zweibrücken), but on the official website https://www.handelsregister.de the Universum Studio cannot be found. JLKiel (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The article has been deleted last year. The only difference was, that the name of the founder was Gökdeniz Özcetin. JLKiel (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Then it's a pretty elaborate fake - with a very detailed web page, and a carefully constructed and consistent presence on IMDb. And in fact a couple of mentions in third party publications. [5] [6] But I tell you what I'll do: I put it up for AfD; it doesn't appear to be notable even if it is real. At AfD the community can examine the evidence and decide. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@JLKiel: The AfD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universum Studio. I suggest you present your argument there. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

108.25.64.41

He's at it again... Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I protected your page for two weeks this time. Wikipedia doesn't really like protection to be applied to talk pages, but this is ridiculous. Let me know if the problem recurs. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Will do. As understandable as it sounds, he's clearly attempting to disrupt my normal activities in Wikipedia. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings from the UK

Hi hope you are well :) TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 18:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MelanieN/Archive_9&oldid=1078493058"