User talk:MelanieN/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Entry on "International Association for Public Participation"

Hi Melanie, I just noticed that the page International Association for Public Participation has recently been deleted. Could you kindly restore it? I believe the concerns (e.g. lack of sourcing) can be addressed, and I'd be happy to help the original author comply with Wikipedia standards in that regard. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbonnema (talk • contribs) 09:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Tbonnema. I can't restore that page, because it had been copied word-for-word from http://participationcompass.org/article/show/335 . Wikipedia does not allow copyright violations. If you want you can create a new page, WITHOUT copying from other sources. I would suggest you create it in your own userspace rather than the main encyclopedia. You can do that here: User:Tbonnema/International Association for Public Participation. In your own userspace it will not get deleted while you work on it (unless it is copied from somewhere else, that's still a no-no). One other caution: I notice from your user page that you are on the board of this organization. That suggests you have a conflict of interest in writing about it. Please read WP:COI. Wikipedia discourages (but does not forbid) writing about things where you have a conflict of interest. You were correct to disclose that connection on your user page, you need to be open about it when you have a COI. But you need to be very careful to write in a neutral way, not to sing the praises of the organization. And you need to provide independent sources for what you say. If you want, you can ask me to look at your draft when you have it finished, and I will advise you if it is likely to be accepted this time. The standard for accepting an article about an organization is here: WP:ORG. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm generally familiar with the Wikipedia process. Just FYI, the deleted article did not violate copyright. Rather, the entry on ParticipationCompass uses content from the IAP2 website verbatim. Restoring the page would be helpful in order to connect with the original author. Any other options for finding out which users have been involved so far? Tbonnema (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Tbonnema, but you can't use material from the IAP2 website either. That would also be a copyright violation. Just start over and rewrite the content in your own words. The original author was P2practice. They were the only person who edited that page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of hoaxes

Just curious why you're deleting hoax articles instead of archiving them, per the instructions at WP: List of Hoaxes on WP.198.161.2.212 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Actually, that list seems to be for hoaxes that were noticed and reported on by independent reliable sources, per the instructions. And I notice that there hasn't been a new addition to that list since 2012. Apparently I'm not the only one who prefers to delete hoaxes as fast as possible, rather than archiving them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have deleted hundreds of hoaxes and FWIW I didn't even know that such a list exists. Furthermore, now that I've taken a look, that page is not a policy or even a guideline and personally I don't think it serves much purpose. Our main problem is that many NPPers are unable to recognise a hoax from any other of the multitude of CSD criteria. Which leads me to believe that they don't notice much else either and shouldn't be patrolling new pages. I've scolded quite a few for not recognising a blatant hoax. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

From the fact that nothing has been added to that list in three years, apparently nobody thinks it serves much purpose. The IP here posted the same question on three different talk pages; at least they have heard of it! I agree with you about people who can't spot even fairly blatant hoaxes. You have to have the possibility of "hoax" on your radar; with some people it just never occurs to them. Naive, or overdoing AGF, or just not wanting to bother to do the necessary research to see if it can be verified. I have to admit, this latest one (Gareth Davies) would have gotten by me. It was way too believable - because it had been copied from a valid article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

1. The "instructions" on that page are clearly meant to be instructions on what to do if you want to archive a hoax, not instructions that one should do so. In any case, it's just a page that somebody decided to make up:it isn't a policy, or even a guideline, so it can't "instruct" administrators to do anything. In fact, I am considering whether to remove the word "instructions", as potentially misleading.
2. The claim on the page is that "Its purpose is to document hoaxes on Wikipedia, in order to improve our detection and understanding of them". I don't agree: I don't think having a list of past hoaxes significantly helps to recognise new ones. I also suspect that is in fact an excuse for having the page, rather than a reason, but in any case I don't agree.
3. If we archived even 1% of all the hoaxes that are made, there would be so many that the page would be swamped.
4. In my opinion, the best way to deal with the kind of vandals who create hoaxes is get rid of the hoaxes, and give those vandals the minimum possible amount of attention. Seeing their crap kept and listed in such a page only encourages them. The less attention their vandalism gets, the less encouragement there is for them to continue.
5. It takes less time trouble to just delete a page than to archive it and add it to the list. Really, I have got at least 200 more useful things to do with the time I have available for working on Wikipedia than storing and recording total crap. Every minute I spend on such a pointless task is a minute less that I can spend on useful work. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The only hoaxes where it might be worth retaining a copy are those that attracted considerable outside comment, were particularly long-lived, or otherwise had some feature of interest that might help with identifying others. Even there, there is a danger of WP:BEANS. But the last few I deleted were a non-existent "Duchess of Derbyshire", a made-up "religion", a story about someone born in 2021, and a false claim that a named person had won the Bach Prize and been given an honorary knighthood. There is absolutely no point retaining that sort of nonsense. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement. Apparently so is Wikipedia, since nothing has been added to that list in years. Without straying too far from AGF, I do have to wonder why an IP (or un-logged-in user) came here and to several other people's talk pages, apparently wanting a particular hoax article to be archived. Quest for immortality, perhaps? --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Main Quad (Stanford University)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Main Quad (Stanford University) 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 Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Main Quad (Stanford University)

The article Main Quad (Stanford University) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Main Quad (Stanford University) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Main Quad (Stanford University)

The article Main Quad (Stanford University) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Main Quad (Stanford University) 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 Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I just wanted to thank you for deleting those articles I nominated for speedy deletion. I created the articles but knew that they did not explain the significance of the person. I have some more that I created that I will nominate for speedy deletion, could you delete them when I do because I don't want those articles that are not notable anymore. Thanks Fresh Sullivan (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, User:Fresh Sullivan. I noticed that you had nominated them yourself and I wondered why. I could tell that you worked hard on them and I was sorry to have to delete all that work - but of course you were right that they did not qualify as notable. If you have other articles to nominate for deletion, just tag them in the usual way and someone will take care of them. If you are the only person who has worked on the articles, you can tag them with G7 ("only editor requests deletion") instead of A7 ("no claim of notability") if you want; either one will work. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For being prolific at civility and not taking the potato chip. Esquivalience t 02:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL, thanks! I hadn't see that essay before! --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

American English pages

Hello! Just for the sake of convenience, do you mind telling me a few of the U.S. English dialect articles you were referring to in your statement in the New Mexican English discussion where you said "I checked a couple of articles in that category [Category: American English] and found they have no better references than this article." I'd like to vet those couple of articles. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't get deep into analysis of the sources, but I thought Northeast Pennsylvania English and Baltimore accent had references similar to the one we are discussing. Others, such as California English and even (to my surprise) Boontling, were better sourced. Please understand that I wasn't arguing that any those articles should be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Quebec telemarketing Inc

Hi Melanie, yet another coat article Quebec telemarketing Inc has been created. I daresay there's enough variation in the company name that this game of whack a mole can go on a long time. Some user blocks might actually resolve this matter but for some reason my SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nopirosyadi has been ignored for a week, now. I don't know if you work in this area as well, but do you have any advice for me on how else I might attract broader administrative attention on what is an ongoing problem? Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• It was removed but the deleting admin ignored a request for salting on the article talk page. So now it's back at RFPP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Annnnd it's been salted. I'll keep a watch on your page for a bit in case you have any advice for me. The editor is still not blocked. Thanks for your help, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your note. I don't really work in the sockpuppet area; you might ask User:Kelapstick, who salted this latest variant of the title. This pattern is clearly abusive and it might almost get to the point where any account that creates an article about this company should be immediately blocked as promotional, even if "sock" is harder to prove. Meanwhile, let's try to come up with a list of all the titles that have been used to date, and who created them. You'll need my help with that, since you can't see the deleted ones. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
      • • I have also salted Quebectelemarketing (entreprise). Shawn in Montreal perhaps someone such as Mike V would be so good as to look into this (since I asked him for help earlier in the week, but didn't require it). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks to you both. The list I've already put together a list in the rolling RFPP log entry for June 1 that should be reasonably complete, with this one added. I have to say, I don't know why this had dragged on so, why so many of my requests for help or action have been ignored. I thank you both for your help in moving this along, though! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
            • I threw a list on the SPI page, I don't see any other accounts looking at the deleted history of the others, but  Looks like a duck to me.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Thanks I saw that. Great. I'll continue to check new articles with "telemarketing," as best I can. I did manage to get one of the SPAs blocked earlier in the week. But just the one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I was partway through making a list when I saw this. I added my partial list to the SP investigation. As I said at the AfD, I think any article created on this subject should be speedied immediately and the creator blocked as a sock. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll post my partial list here too, for the convenience of anyone else who joins this conversation. I'll expand it later, or those of you who know of others can add them --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• 4-26-15 Quebec telemarketing created by User:Nopirosyadi, speedy deleted 4-26-15
• 5-10-15 Quebec telemarketing created by User:Nopirosyadi, deleted 6-1-15 ore Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quebec telemarketing
• 5-17-15 France telemarketing created by User: Nopirosyadi, speedy deleted 5-17-15
• 5-17-15 French telemarketing created by User:Nopirosyadi, deleted 6-1-15 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French telemarketing
• 5-25-15 Quebectelemarketing created by User:Fahmiyatna , speedy deleted 5-25-15
• 5-25-15 Quebectelemarketing recreated by User:Fahmiyatna, speedy deleted 5-25-15
• 5-25-15 Quebectelemarketing recreated by User:Fahmiyatna , speedy deleted 5-29-15
• 5-25-15 Francetelemarketing created by User:Susi hasti, now at AfD
• 5-26-15 Montrealtelemarketing created by User:Ayurahayu, speedy deleted 5-27-15
• 6-1-15 Quebec telemarketing Inc created by User:Rinikusmiati, speedy deleted 6-2-15
• 6-1-15 Quebectelemarketing entreprise created by User:Rinikusmiati, speedy deleted 6-1-15
• 6-2-15 Quebec Telemarketing Corp created by User:Tete hastuti, speedy deleted 6-2-15

Adding a couple more; eleven and counting. Pinging User:KrakatoaKatie since she salted several of these and recognized them as a "walled garden". --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we've got them all, except for that last one which hasn't been created (yet). Should we preemptively salt it? KrakatoaKatie 21:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL, I like the way you think! --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Adding another. I think Katie had the right idea: can we just salt every possible permutation of this name? --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Spam blacklist's an option; he might get discouraged if he can't link to his own site. Or that just might make the re-creations impossible to find via Special:Linksearch. —Cryptic 21:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Came back yesterday

Just came back to Wikipedia yesterday and became an ArbCom clerk today. A trainee, though. What's up with you? How many new San Diego articles created/rescued? How many GAs? Jim Carter 14:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Very happy to see you back! and congratulations (I think) on your new clerkship. Good luck with it, that's a high-drama area with lots of mud flying around; I hope you won't get any of it on you. Just one new San Diego article in the past few weeks, Fred Baker (physician). And one GA, Main Quad (Stanford University). It does get a little harder to find the time to write an article, when I feel like I should be doing admin stuff. But sometimes you just have to set the admin work aside and do it. How many articles rescued? Well, I have almost stopped counting. You encounter a lot of rescuable articles when you patrol CSD. Welcome back, hope to see you here a lot! --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My activity here will depend on my internet connection. I'll get a better connection by next week, though :) BTW it looks like Kudpung has again helped a good person, Ritchie, get the tools. It was a great nomination by Kudpung! Jim Carter 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry you missed it. (I almost missed it myself since I was traveling; but I was able to !vote using my alternate account.) But you got to comment anyhow, at his talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Fairfax Field

Hi. Who requested deletion of Fairfax Field, and what did they want to move to that title? Was there anything in the page history other than a redirect to Fairfax Municipal Airport? FYI, these pages are a bit familiar to me as I've run across them before, but I'm here right now because of Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review. I realize you're still getting familiar with your new administrator's cockpit ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Wbm, thanks for the note. "Fairfax Field" was moved to Fairfax Municipal Airport in August 2014, leaving a redirect. All of its history went with it, so there was no history at "Fairfax Field" other than the move. The deletion of the redirect page was requested by User:Ktr101, with the intention of moving Fairfax Field (military use) to "Fairfax Field". That seemed non-controversial to me, since the only time it was called "Fairfax Field" was when it was under military control, and there is no other article called "Fairfax Field". I assume that Ktr will fix the various hatnotes when they carry out the move. Glad to know there is somebody who keeps tabs on these things! --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:G6, "An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it." In my experience, admins usually ensure that the move is completed by just moving the page themselves. I believe you could have just done this in one step, called "moving over a redirect". Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that rule. I'll go ahead and do that. Thanks for letting me know. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, as I moved it after discovering that one of the editors moved it to the spot, and it didn't conform to any of our pre-existing naming guidelines. Considering this was part of a pattern on the part of the user to do things a bit unconventionally, I figured it would not be all that controversial, and requested the move. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Akshay Agrawal

Hi MelianiN (talk · contribs) You recently deleted Akshay Aggarwal ( Entrepreneur) and suggested that it be moved to Akshay Agrawal because thats what the article in the reliable source mentions him as.

However, Akshay Agrawal also seems to have been deleted. Could you please look into it? I think it was deleted by some other user, but its notable because it refs Hindustan Times ( Indians 2nd or 1st probably leading newspaper) and 'Other Stuff Exists" ( WP Policy ) like Siddharth Shetty.

Thanks Rollingbananas (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The blatant sockpuppet Rollingbananas has been blocked, thanks to WP:BOOMERANG. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Just in case anyone is wondering, all three articles Akshay Agrawal, Akshay Agarwal, and Akshay Aggarwal (Entrepreneur) have been deleted and salted, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akshay Agrawal. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Correction to a post of yours

Hi, Melanie. I have taken the unusual step of changing a post of yours in a discussion page, as you can see here. Normally, of course, I would not do that, but in this case it seemed so obvious a correction that I decided it was IAR time. In the very unlikely event that you disagree, of course you will revert my change. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. As you realized, it was just a typo. --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your work at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection! Deryck C. 20:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the barnstar! I know from my own previous RFPP requests how helpful a timely protection can be. Thanks for your own good work there! --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

The article is on a female CEO of a Fortune 500 company; she is best known for pushing through legislation to regulate out-sourced pharmaceutical manufacturing and for being a female CEO of a major corporation. I have a COI.

The current article contains primary sources, a dedicated Controversy section, and a dedicated "Recognition" section; it does not include very much information about the lobbying she is actually best known for, as described in profiles in Barron's, The Atlantic and other publications.this local publication[1]

The article got off to a rough start; things started settling down after discussions on blocks were started at ANI. But I think some of the editors that participated previously have gotten burnt out and I don't want to keep pestering them. I've seen you around at AfD, noticed you edit a lot of BLP pages, and was wondering if you had an interest in collaborating on improving the page. I have a COI, so I can't really contribute to the article while following WP:COI without someone to consider my suggestions and collaborate in improvement. CorporateM (Talk) 06:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't look too bad, but sure, I'll be willing to work on it - and to discuss your suggested edits with you. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

At first glance I notice a couple of bare-link references (13 and 14); I think you could expand those into proper reference citations without violating COI! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

But those are primary sources - shouldn't they be trimmed as UNDUE? Especially since there are secondary sources with similar information. CorporateM (Talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a news report or something would be better. OK, so those are some of the sources you were talking about replacing? Go ahead and make your suggestions, then, and I will review them as necessary. I have watchlisted the article, so you can make your suggestions at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, suggestions made here. I also consider many of the awards to be primary sources based on the criteria at WP:ORGAWARDS and I think the criteria set there for secondary sources of awards is equally relevant for BLP pages. For example, the "Emerging Pharma Leaders 2011" ranking is almost certainly trivial promotion. Many of the awards are covered in in-depth biography sources about her and can legitimately be included (integrated into the article instead of a promotional "Recognition" section), using proper ORGAWARD-compliant sources. CorporateM (Talk) 17:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I get a quick block over here?

And maybe a revdel on this nasty personal attack by 169.57.0.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on User talk:Black Kite. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@BusterD: I did the revdel. I didn't feel like I could do a block, since they haven't done anything else since you gave them a final warning over this. Maybe somebody more experienced with blocking than I am would feel differently, but as a "newbie" admin I err on the side of caution. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert92107

Hi, and thanks for your assistance. I haven't used this function before so I didn't know better. There was some sort of a subject line which I used to identify the subject and myself, but I'm not sure what good it actually did since you obviously didn't understand.

The subject was "Carlsbad desalination project".

I also think that using the wiki system for these comments is probably expedient, but it seems hardly the best way to go about it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert92107 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, Robert; nice to meet you. I see that RightCowLeftCoast has moved your comments to the article's talk page, which is probably the best place for them, but it's also perfectly OK to make comments at a person's user talk page - as you did here. And this time you put in a subject heading, which great. I gather you are new here, but you are learning fast and that's good. 65787By the way, I'm guessing from your username and your contributions that you are in San Diego or have an interest in San Diego. (I could have made my username MelanieN92106.) You might want to consider joining WikiProject San Diego. It lets you know about articles of interest in San Diego County, and it gets you invited to meetups. The project page is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject San Diego, and if you want to join it, just click the "edit" button next to "participants" at the bottom of the page. I look forward to seeing you around Wikipedia! --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Yes, I'm in SD, although not at that same zip. I got into wiki editing when I checked out the entry for California High Speed Rail. It was really bad, so I've put a few weeks into filling it out and improving the organization. As to the Carlsbad plant, I read a recent article in the LA Times, and wondered about the wiki for the project. It, too, was really poor. It had just history, capacity, and some construction facts -- just about what's there right now. However, I don't think that is adequate for such a large and significant project. If it succeeds (as its proponents want) then it could provide an important lesson for other desalination projects. That was what prompted me to add more detail, including briefly how it works, how its design differs from other RO plants, and project pros and cons. I'm also interested in the trolley, and I've made a few edits there. Those pages are pretty good, although the proposed Balboa Park extension is not adequate (I read the project report so I know), so I'm thinking about how to revise that. I don't have any other SD interests at this point, but you never know. (I'm supposed to be working on my internet startup, but I've moved recently and am putting time into getting things straightened out instead, but I REALLY need to get back into it.) Thanks again for your interest and assistance. Robert92107 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've noticed your edits in some of those areas; very well done and nicely sourced. As you found out, sometimes there is disagreement about facts or sourcing, and that's a normal part of Wikipedia. Feel free to discuss any changes somebody else makes; the article talk page is the best place. RE: I REALLY need to get back into it: Somebody should have warned you that Wikipedia is habit forming. Now you are hooked and it's too late. Bwa-ha-ha-ha! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

WWE AFD

Hello. I was a little surprised by your close. There were 7 "deletes" and only 2 redirects, and it's not exactly a likely search term with that sort of wording. Any insight? Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I had a feeling someone would ask. 0;-D I always lean toward redirect if there is a plausible target, and I have seen some other admins do the same. "Redirects are cheap" as they say. And if the kid wants his information to use somewhere else, he can find it in the history. But I will make sure he doesn't try to sneak it back into being an article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand in theory, I use it myself sometimes...I just don't think that's the way the discussion was heading this time... Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a jerk or anything, but if that's all you have to say on the subject, I'll probably be taking this to DRV. There were 7 delete !votes, most all citing some sort of policy/guideline/essay, and only 2 for redirect, of which, neither really cited anything, or even really gave much of a rationale at all. Your thought process is valid as participant taking a stance in the discussion, but not a closer who's making a decision based on the stances already present in the discussion. Any other thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that earlier today, somebody undid the redirect and tried to restore the article. It was immediately reversed, but that does suggest that leaving it as a redirect makes it a target for recreation. If you want to take this to DRV, I will be glad to get people's feedback - and happy to abide by the decision of the community. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

My main concern is really the disconnect between the content of the discussion and the close that come from it. It doesn't align at all. If you're not changing your decision, I'll probably bring it to DRV in a little bit then. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, and that is a valid concern. I realize it was a borderline call. I actually would like to get community feedback on this; as a relatively new administrator, it will be a learning experience for me. --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In case the ping didn't work, here you go. Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time on this. Thanks for suggesting and implementing the full-protection. At least that addresses one of my main hangups with the redirect - that it could so easily be recreated once we someday lose interest in watching over a list of pro-wrestlers, a subject that I was gathering, isn't exactly of interest to either of us. I doubt an admin would ever undo the redirect unless it was substantially changed. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious note. I actually didn't mind; it was a good learning experience for me. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for me too. I did not realize we were able to take liberties like this when closing discussions. Perhaps its similar to WP:INVOLVED, where its an acceptable action as long as its within policy and is pretty likely that others would have felt the same way and reached the same conclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

nice going

Way to delete a page I was in the middle of working on only an hour or so after I created it, mid edit actually. You people are real friendly and helpful let me tell you.--Suchfarth (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see my note on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You might want to consider userfying these articles as well:

• Mercantile Peninsula Bank
• Peninsula Bank

I do not want to upset the author by tagging them CSD but they seem to be going through BankEncyclopedia and creating non-notable stubs. Jbh^Talk 14:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I already offered to userfy Peninsula Bank for them; thanks for letting me know about the other. We are conversing on the user's talk page and I am trying to get them to understand about the uses of userspace and draft space. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Userfied both of them. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Melanie, I understand that you are just doing what you're told but this is all really stupid and counterproductive to improving wikipedia. No, I wasn't going through bank encyclopedia and creating pages, "JBH" Stop jumping to conclusions.--Suchfarth (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Suchfarth: My apologies. I saw three very short articles created in a short time all with only reference to a single site. This is a common way of creating stubs. Please understand that there are hundreds of new articles created by new users each day and few people to look at them all. We try to be understanding of the learning curve but we are people just like you. If you have questions about our policies or need help understanding what it takes for a subject to be notable for the purpose of a Wikipedia article please feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will try to help. Jbh^Talk 14:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

vulture fund vandalism

Hi, MelanieN:

Thank you for your recent effort to protect the Economy of Argentina page from ongoing trolling by apologists for -and quite possibly employees of- vulture funds and their well-financed PR machine (drug money buys a lot of nice things, I suppose). Your initial decision to place the page under semi-protection was unfortunately overriden by another administrator; but a new barrage has proven you right.

Could you please consider reinstating the semi-protection over this page?

Thank You, Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sherlock, sorry to see you are still dealing with this. The additional incident pushes it over the line in my opinion and I will give it a week's semi-protection. I should note that not all of the person's edits are vandalism; some are small disputes over wording. However one paragraph is clearly non-neutral and POV. Let me know if the problem recurs after the protection expires, and please keep in mind that not every slight change in wording is vandalism. --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that, MelanieN. There's a long-running issue with a couple of editors copy-pasting op-eds that parrot the vulture fund line with wording so misleading (or outright false) that it violates the most basic Verifiability and Neutrality guidelines (for instance, referring to such demands as "full repayment", when public records show vulture funds such as Paul Singer's Caymans-based NML are actually refusing full market value repayment and are instead demanding 16 times what was spent for these bonds); I have my suspicions as to who this might be. Thanks again, and All the Best. Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Melanie. Just a quick note to let you know we may have found our sockpuppet (a longtime POV pusher with a history of using right-wing Economist op eds and attack pieces as statements of fact). Thanks. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sherlock4000: Do you think it was the semi-protection, that eliminated the socks and forced him into the open? Not that I'm making any judgment on whether this user is or is not a sockmaster. I don't have the information to do that. But since you think he is, have you filed an WP:SPI? In the meantime, be careful not to make yourself vulnerable to 3RR. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thank you for your quick reply. I recognized the type and tone of edit because I've been dealing with this user's malicious and highly biased op-eds, which he presents as unvarnished fact in Wikipedia voice, for 3 years now against a variety of Argentine-related subjects (as I mostly contribute to WP Argentina). This one for example: [2], which he deleted for no other reason than because it was a positive development ("synthesis" he called it), and this one especially. I mean, there you have him repeatedly posting 3-year-old, anonymous op eds written in crass POV tone predicting something that did not happen (on the contrary, if you look at the many positive developments at YPF since its renationalization) - but which he insisted on tacking on the lead for years!

It's worth pointing out as well that he has a habit of blanking entire pages without reason or consensus, taking advantage of the editor's absence and with very vague edit summaries to evade detection ("cleaning up", what "the sources" say, etc.). Juriaan, btw, is someone he had blocked merely for accusing him of being paid to edit against certain subjects - a punishment I felt was quite harsh considering Juriaan's caliber as a contributor.

Frankly, I'd ask for both an SPI and topic ban - if I thought they'd do any good. Especially since once he succeeded in having me blocked for not logging on six weeks before logging on (i.e. not engaging in sockpuppetry to influence an edit war, as he's apparently doing now). Besides, I doubt he'd use an IP that coincides with his at home/work/favorite café, etc.

Thank you once again for your time and input, Melanie. Administrators tend to be so busy, and it's very good of you to take the trouble.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keasel Broome

As expected, Keasel Broome played a full match for the Barbados national football team against Aruba during the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Second Round on Wednesday. See [3] and [4], and thus now easily meets WP:NFOOTBALL having played not only in a Tier 1 International Match - but a World Cup qualification match. As such, can you please restore this article that you deleted last week.

I really don't understand the point of people starting these deletion processes AFTER he's been called up to the national squad, and closing them before the actual game. Nfitz (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can start a deletion debate at any time, Nfitz, and the article should either comply with notability guidelines at that point in time or be deleted. The article can always be recreated easily once the topic meets the relevant notability guideline. The solutions are to refrain from moving draft articles to main space before they meet the relevant guideline, and also to avoid complaining about the deletion of non-compliant articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Better yet, people should show some WP:COMMONSENSE because there is no WP:RUSH and see what happens rather than wasting everyone's time with needless bureaucracy and a very black-and-white view of things. However I don't see what this has to do with the request to undelete. Are you challenging that User:Cullen328 or do you concur that the article should be undeleted? Nfitz (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If the topic did not comply with the notability guideline when it was being discussed for deletion, then of course its deletion was 100% proper. If, as you assert, the topic now meets notability guidelines, then the article can now be recreated and expanded and improved. That is exactly how our guidelines are to be interpreted and carried out. The people who wasted other people's time are those who created a non-compliant main space article too soon, rather than incubating it in user or draft space until the time was right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, do you concur that the article should be undeleted? Nfitz (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As of June 11, 2015? Yes, if your assertion that this person now finally meets the relevant notability guideline is true. If that is the case, then of course the article should now be restored. Now. Not before. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how there'd be any question that a FIFA match report listing him as the starting goalkeeper in a World Cup qualifying match wouldn't be true! [5] Nfitz (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Nfitz and Cullen328: I will restore the article. Thanks for your input, Cullen. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Quebec telemarketing again

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quebec telemarketing, and it has reappeared as Quebec Telemarketing, created as Quebec Telemarketing Inc - needs multiple salting, perhaps? PamD 08:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. We have already salted half a dozen variations on this name but they just won't quit. I salted both of these. If you see any more let me know. I also filed a sockpuppet investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Melanie, there were a couple of formatting mistakes in that sockpuppet investigation, the most important one being that you didn't include a {{SPI case status}} link. Since that would mean the page would not be listed in any of the categories of open sockpuppet investigations, it might have gone unnoticed for a long time if no administrator or clerk had happened to find it. I have dealt with it now, but I suggest it is safer to always start a new sockpuppet investigation by using the section "How to open an investigation" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, to make sure nothing gets missed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that link! I was trying to find directions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases, but that page does not include instructions for how to do it (although it claims it does). So I basically faked it. Next time I'll know. --MelanieN (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing backlinks after deletions

Hi Melanie, I noticed that you deleted High Sabbath Adventists after AfD, but you have not yet removed some backlinks to the deleted page from other articles. This is recommended practice as set out in WP:AFDAI. If you normally do this but overlooked it on this occasion, pardon me for intrudong. Otherwise, I hope this is helpful.

Thanks for all your work here, – Fayenatic London 14:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I always remove redirects, but I don't always remove or un-wikilink references in articles. I can certainly see some that should have been removed for this article, and I will take care of it. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice work. Good catch on the self-published citations. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey...

I need some deleted pages that I want to put on the "deleted nonsense" page. Can you bring me back the source for articles like Project Shrine Maiden (deleted by Xezbeth in 2012/2013), Pichi no Shiro de Rokkuman to Pati (deleted in 2014 by Fram), Sonic CD: The Movie (deleted in August 2011), Japanese Ritual Day (deleted by Fram in 2014), and Cheerleaders (the one Black Kite deleted in 2014, when it got moved to her userspace.) If you DON'T, it's OK. 67.82.89.253 (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the "deleted nonsense" page, or with any of these articles. You would do best to ask the administrators who deleted them. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Jon the VGN3rd

Before you ask, yes. I'm the same user, but with a new account. Because I was unable to recover a password from my previous username, I had no choice but to create a new one. I understand if you don't believe me, but I am indeed the same user who had been the victim of an IP user who had consistently changed numerous IPs in order to cause trouble to me in the past. I'm now under a new name, so... yeah. As I was unable to recover my password, I had no other option but to create a new account and start my contributions from scratch. Again, I understand if you don't believe me, as my IP tends to change on its own without warning. CrowdingShark19 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I do remember protecting your talk page last spring. Is there something you want to request from me now? --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do. While my past contributions can't be passed over to my new account, I would like for my old account to be moved over to my new userpage. I couldn't blank the page from it because it was still protected and I could only manage to copy the entire thing, minus the talkpage. CrowdingShark19 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't help you with that; that sounds like a job for a WP:Bureaucrat. And I doubt if even they can do it without some kind of evidence that you actually are the same person as Jon the VGN3rd. If no such evidence can be provided, I think you can forget it. Anyhow, this question is way above my pay grade. I'll see if I can find a bureaucrat online at the moment. User:Worm That Turned, User:Acalamari, User:Dweller: Is there some way to link or merge these accounts (assuming it can be verified that this is the same person)? Should the original account, Jon the VGN3rd, be blocked (like with a Clean Start) to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry? Better yet, is there some way to help him find his password and regain control of his original account? --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've tried asking for a password recovery before, but as I didn't had my gmail set up before (as it was optional and not needed), I was denied help request for a password recovery because I was required to input my gmail address which was denied also, so basically, I was at my wit's end and gave myself in by creating a new account just to let you know. As for the evidence to prove that I'm the same user? Well, its gone and the password for my old username with it. And thank you in advance on notifying any bureaucrats available to see if they can provide solutions for me. CrowdingShark19 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN and CrowdingShark19, at present there is no way to transfer the edits of one existing account to another; the best course of action would be to create redirects from the old account to the new one or move the user/talk pages of the old to the new. Acalamari 20:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A redirect would be nice for both userpages from my old one to my new one. CrowdingShark19 (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Irresponsible and careless behavior displayed by an editor

Hello,

As you know, Wgolf senselessly and irresponsibly tagged the article Ivana Raymonda van der Veen for speedy deletion using an absurd criterion (you removed the tag earlier today). Although I gave him a hard time on his talk page last night, this morning I was more conciliatory, apologizing for assuming bad faith, but I also demanded an apology from him - a request that he has ignored. I believe there should be consequences for reckless behavior on Wikipedia, especially if no explanation or apology is given. Nominating an article for speedy deletion (as opposed to the regular deletion request procedure) is no small matter, especially when the decision has no foundations whatsoever. What Wgolf did is outrageous, and it should never happen again. I noticed today that Wgolf apparently used Twinkle to perform that edit; if so, you know very well per WP:TWINKLEABUSE that "Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked."

Please, as an administrator, what do you propose as a solution? Should I take this case to ANI, or do you have a better idea? This must not happen ever again. And to make matters worse, Wgolf has not taken ANY responsibility for this very serious mistake. Many thanks in advance for your reply. Dontreader (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Your anger is misplaced. Wgolf nominated the article for speedy deletion under a perfectly reasonable criterion - WP:G4, the fact that this was a recreation of an article which had previously been deleted per a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivana Raymonda van der Veen. It turned out that the recreated article was different enough from the previously deleted article that it should not be speedy-deleted. But Wgolf could not know that, since he could not see the deleted article. Only administrators can do that, and Wgolf is not an administrator. So no apology is necessary. The nomination was perfectly proper, and my removal of the nomination was perfectly proper - because I could see the deleted article, as he could not. BTW you should be aware that somebody might still nominate the article for deletion, using the WP:Articles for discussion process, if they feel she does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. If you want to prevent that from happening, read the criteria and make sure the article has the necessary sources to qualify. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:G4 stipulates the following:

"A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space or converted to a Draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)."

Since Wgolf could not see the deleted version of the article because he is not an administrator, then how can his nomination have been "perfectly proper"? He was in no position to assess whether or not the new article is a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." as is stipulated in WP:G4. His tagging was performed without knowledge, which is highly irresponsible when you take into consideration the highly sensitive nature of this action. How can it be "perfectly proper" to make a blind assumption?

As I said, there should be consequences for this reckless behavior. I have no idea why you are defending it. Can't you see my point? This may very well constitute WP:TWINKLEABUSE or some other form of punishable behavior. Please advise: will you take action, or should I contact a different administrator, or should I take this case to ANI? Thank you. Dontreader (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to take this question anywhere you want for a second opinion, or as many additional opinions as you want. I suspect it will not get you anywhere. And I certainly advise against ANI, where your complaint will either get laughed off the page or result in calls for a WP:BOOMERANG.The tag of G4 is routinely placed by anyone (administrator or not, usually not) who realizes there was a previous AfD discussion which resulted in deletion. Before I was an administrator, I would have done the same. The tag does not delete the article; it attracts the attention of an administrator, who evaluates the previous article and the new one under the criteria of G4, and decides whether to delete it or remove the tag. That's what happened in this case. I don't understand why you are so outraged against the person who put a tag on the article - a tag which did not result in a deletion or any adverse action. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is no laughing matter. There is a big difference between having a new page marked as patrolled, for example, and tagging an article for speedy deletion for no valid reason. I believe the mechanism that is used to alert patrollers of the existence of new pages, such as drafts, should be used for cases in which an article is re-created, instead of resorting to a blind, threatening and nonsensical speedy deletion message. Don't you agree? Or do you really think it's fine for a contributor to see this with no justification? And please tell me, what if I refuse to "Contest this speedy deletion" (which is the message on that beautiful blue bar)? In the future, if I encounter the same situation, and I know that the speedy deletion tag is an absurd mistake, may I refuse to contest the speedy deletion? Thanks in advance for your civil reply. P.S. I'd be delighted to defend the article in an AfD; I love those discussions, even though AfDs have become quite dysfunctional in many cases due to frequent lack of sufficient participation to reach consensus. Commons works much better since no consensus is required there when I nominate files for deletion. Dontreader (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this clearly enough. The point is: this was tagged for speedy deletion FOR A VALID REASON. Maybe there should be some other way to say "hey, this article was previously deleted per an AfD discussion, it needs an admin to look at it." But for now, the way to tag that for an administrator's attention is to use a Speedy Deletion tag. BTW, the fact that you "contested the speedy deletion" had no effect on my decision; I didn't even look at the article's talk page. Instead I did what any admin would do: looked at the previous article and compared it to the new one. It was quite different, so I declined speedy and removed the tag. But there was no way WGolf could know that, and he did the right thing by tagging it. It's true that the templated notifications are pretty cold, but most New Page Patrollers (I assume that's what he was doing) do not have time to write out a personalized notification to each author. They are too busy trying to evaluate the flood of new articles that are created every day. All they do is tag; an administrator makes the decision. Those criteria you keep quoting are the criteria for deleting; they are not the criteria for tagging. The criterion for tagging is "this page was earlier deleted after an AfD discussion". Somebody else (in this case, me) then evaluates the article and makes the decision. If this article had been wrongly deleted, blame me. Don't blame the person who put on the tag. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie (if that's your name) for your generous time and for your explanation. I agree that there should be a better way to handle these situations, but at least I feel better now, and I definitely will not take any action against Wgolf; he really could have at least replied to me, especially since I did apologize for having initially assumed bad faith on his part. It would have been the Christian thing to do (look at his user page). Anyway, I appreciate the time you gave me, and I'm sorry if by any chance I behaved like a son of a b****. But at least I did better with you than when I defended The Wakes from deletion, where I really was far from pleasant. Many thanks again, and wishing you all the best, Dontreader (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad I was able to explain, and happy editing! --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

My DYK nominations

You realize that my history of paleontology timelines collectively form a ~400 page book-length endeavor right? Sorry I've been slacking on my nominations, but frankly I've been burnt out and exhausted by having worked on them for over a year. I'll try to meet your deadline, but frankly I resent your impatience and being scolded after all the work I've done for the project. Abyssal (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Yes, I have noticed your enormous contributions here and admired them. I'm sorry if my comment sounded harsh. I'm just saying you shouldn't start things that involve other editors, and then leave them hanging. Somewhere in all the heavy editing you have been doing over the past month, there should have been time to respond to other editors' good-faith attempts to move your nominations along. I don't know about you, but when I evaluate a DYK nomination I take responsibility for it, and it remains in the back of my mind, nagging me as something I need to finish. I've never had one hang on for weeks like this. I do encourage you to find the time to clear out this backlog. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action! --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RPP:Rohingya people

Hi there. You have declined page protection for Rohingya people, as I discovered when I tried to file for temporary partial page protection just now.

However, the reason I want to request protection is that while one edit-warring user was blocked for his activity, namely User:Markus W. Karner - incidentally, I filed the report - it is now a free-for-all between IP users. Since page protection was not extended to temporarily prevent IP editing, it's a train wreck of edit wars between IP users.

Is there any way to appeal a block or refile? TWINKLE declined and I didn't want to spam the page manually, but the situation is not any better. In fact, we're sort of rewarding people for being anonymous trolls at this point, because they still get to edit war while registered users do not. AFAIK the blocked user might now be one of them.

Just look at this edit history. Ogress _smash! 05:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Ogress, and I'm sorry to hear the article is having such problems. It appears that the article has now been fully-protected so that only administrators can edit it. That will give the warring parties a chance to discuss their differences at the talk page, and that should solve the edit-warring problem at least temporarily. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Undelete to User space for future reference

Hi Melanie, Recently (June 8), you deleted the page High Sabbath Adventists after a brief discussion (somehow I missed the notification email or I would have participated in that discussion). I understand the reasons for deletion (primarily because it does not qualify as "Notable"), but I would like to have the article for future reference so that if/when the time comes that it can meet all of the criteria, I can use the original as a basis for the updated version. Would it be possible to have the article transferred to the user space I created for it at User:-ray-/High_Sabbath_Adventists? I would greatly appreciate it. Ray Dickinson (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ray, and thanks for your note! I am reluctant to restore the article as it was, because of the concerns expressed at the discussion. People felt it was not an encyclopedia article, but rather a "doctrinal essay," "propaganda", "a way for its adherents to express their beliefs". In the opinion of the discussants, none of the references were worth saving because they were not about the group or were not independent. At 28,000 bytes, the article was far too long and detailed, with way too much detail about the tenets of belief. An encyclopedia article should be more about the group's history, organizational structure, importance or impact, criticism of it, etc. - referenced to independent sources. If there are not independent sources, it will not qualify for an article here. Given all of that, I think you would do better to start over, using the userpage you have created, rather than to try to salvage the article as it was. First read the advice at WP:NPOV, look at some other articles about religious groups to see how such an article can be structured from a neutral point of view, and see WP:Independent sources and WP:Reliable sources to see what kind of references are going to be necessary if this is to become an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the info. I'll take a more historical approach when the opportunity comes next. Ray Dickinson (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

One other related request. Would it be possible to email me a copy of the text? I have a late draft, but not the latest edit. If that could be done, I would be very appreciative. Just for my personal records... I agree with your comments above, and would not use it as a basis for another article in the future. Thank you! Ray Dickinson (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That I can do. It will come to you in edit-window-view format. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Fred Baker (physician)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Khowar language

Hi, Please remove protection from khowar language or add afghanistan to khowar language region. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamma+ (talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Gamma+, and thanks for your note! If you want a change made in the article, you should place a note on the article's talk page, Talk:Khowar language. At the top of your note, copy and paste this: {{edit semi-protected}} Then state clearly what you think should be put in the article. Someone who is able to edit the article will respond and either add your requested change or explain why they think it should not be added. --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Presidential candidate comments on Charleston church shooting

Since you commented in the discussion at Talk:Charleston church shooting, I invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Presidential candidates reactions to the Charleston church shooting. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 00:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Parma F.C.

Could you at least fixed the ref error on the article? Matthew_hk tc 05:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for calling that to my attemtion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Protection of The Assayer

The page The Assayer has been vandalized recently by 5 separate IPs. Since you recently protected the related page Galileo affair I would like to ask for protection of The Assayer as well. It would be preferable to add a level of protection higher than "semi-protection" because recently Galileo-related pages have been vandalized also by registered users (in addition to IPs) who carry out a sequence of meaningless reverts at their own talkpages so as to achieve the minimum of 10 edits required, and then proceed to vandalize the Galileo-related pages. Tkuvho (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Make that six IPs. Tkuvho (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for a month. At that page I see only one non-IP user deleting stuff, and they are a long-established editor. I see that you have reported them at the edit-warring board and I have commented there. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Tkuvho (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW what makes you suspect Azul411? It doesn't fit their pattern. Looking at their sock page, they seem to use registered accounts rather than IPs. I count eight recent IPs at the Assayer article, all brand-new and quacking loudly. Then one of them plus four new ones chimed in at the EW discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I declined to protect earlier at WP:RFPP as it looked like a content dispute to me. What do you think about closing the ANEW report with no action taken against both registered editors but both warned? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was also thinking should happen; close and warn. However, it did not look like a straightforward content dispute to me; the one side struck me as somewhat vandalistic reinforced by probable sockpuppetry; that's why I semiprotected. If the two registered users now want to fight it out, they can do so unhindered by socks. And I'd still like to know who is operating the socks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: BTW you should be the one to close and warn. I am involved. --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Are you satisfied the discussion has run its course at that particular board? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

And then some! Or should we wait for a few more IPs to chime in? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks very much for your kind words for me over at my RfA. I look forward to serving, and hope I may do justice to the position. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15