User talk:MelanieN/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Jon Stewart

First, I didn't initiate an "edit war." I posted some information which was severely changed or deleted, and I put it back up.

I didn't call Stewart a "tool" or "shifty." David Zurawik, respected media critic of The Baltimore Sun, made the comments. I reported what the critic said. The critic made the comments on MediaBuzz, a program on Fox News about the media hosted by respected media critic Howie Kurtz. The comments were made in context of the story first reported by Samuelsohn of Politico. Also some guy named RexxS deleted my post about Stewart crossing a line imitating Herman Cain. That's not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impartial Scholar (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Impartial Scholar: As I keep telling you - the place to discuss this is the talk page of the article, Talk:Jon Stewart. Posting notes on the talk pages of individual editors is not going to help. Here's how things work here: material used at Wikipedia has to be neutral. It has to be verifiable based on independent reliable sources. And it has to be important enough to include. These rules are interpreted by the community through consensus; consensus is developed by discussion at the talk page. For now, several different people have removed the Fox News comments, suggesting that the current consensus is not to include them. You are free to argue your case for including them, and maybe you will get the consensus to agree with you. But the place to develop that consensus is at the article's talk page. You must NOT keep re-adding it; that is the very definition of an edit war. Edit warring is a no-no here, regardless of who is "right".

By the way, when you post on a talk page you should sign your comment. The way to do that is to add four tildes, like this ~~~~, which will automatically generate your signature and a date/time stamp. You can find the tildes as the capital of the key to the left of "1", right under the "escape" key. Even easier, you can put your cursor at the end of your comments and then click on the signature button. It's in that row of buttons above the editing window, and it looks like a signature. Here's what I get when I do that: --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Mujaddid

Thanks. That's what I wanted to do but was unsure how much crap I would take for reverting before protecting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL, usually YOU are the bold one and I am the timid one! Before I full-protect I always try to revert to the last stable version (but of course that is impossible because it violates the rule at WP:WRONG). I also scolded them on the article's talk page and posted 3RR warnings to several of them. We'll see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting re-instatement of the indefinite semi-protection following the recent expiration of full protection. Thanks. --Peaceworld 15:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the article has required semiprotection almost continuously, so I will reinstate it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Greyshirt

Hi Melanie - hope all's well.

I see you did work on moving and cleaning up Greyshirt. I hate to cause extra work, but would you please undo those moves? I talked with the non-admin closer of the RM here, and they agreed that the discussion could be reopened. But it can't go back to the previous status quo without admin help. I hate to do it, because if it closes again in the same direction, this would be needless, but that's where we are. I can then undo the close, as Kwami allowed. Let me know if you have a different suggestion. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Dohn joe. Let's do this: go ahead and re-open the discussion, if you like, but let's leave the move the way it is for now. If you want I can come to the discussion and explain what I did. If consensus develops to go back to the previous situation, or to some third situation, I'll do or undo the moves then. But for now it won't hurt anything to leave them moved. Fair enough? --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. The only thing I'd ask is that if the final answer is "no consensus" that we return to where things had been. Thanks Melanie. Dohn joe (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I inserted an explanation of the history and the current situation (please correct me if I got anything wrong), and I added an area for new discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with article Utigurs

Hello,

Could you please help me with the article "Utigurs" (as you helped not long ago) ? During the past few weeks I have improved the article substantially, but it is constantly under attack of different users who have tried to delete information or to put different tags on the article without any real reason just because they don't like the presented information. The problem with this article is that Utigurs were actually Huns and most scholars associate them with the Bulgars. This information is presented in the article in a neutral way and the best scholars and scientists ( as Edward Gibbon, Maenchen -Helfen and Steven Runciman ) are cited to support the information. There have always been claims from different people and nations to have some connection with the Huns. It is not my fault that all the scientists and historians always have connected the Utigur Huns with the Bulgars, from 18th century historian Edward Gibbon up to the latest book about the Huns by Hyun Jin Kim (2013). I can understand that this may infuriate many people, but Wikipedia is not a place to present nationalistic, personal or other claims under the false disguise that the article is presenting fringe theories, what is the last tag put on the article by a user with a nickname Crovata. Actually the article do presents the mainstream view, as you can see by reading it by yourself. Yesterday information was added that the Huns can probably be traced back to north China using artificial skull deformation of circular type, it is supported by scientific paper. This information is also on the article Huns. If someone doesn't like the results from a scientific paper, it doesn't mean that he/she can delete it or put unwarranted tags on the article. Actually such action is an attempt to vandalize the article.

Thank you for your time and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.112.239 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your note. I really can't help you with this article. If I semi-protect it, as I did before, the result will be to ban YOU from editing the article - while leaving the registered users free to edit. I don't think that's what you want. This is basically a content dispute, with you presenting ideas and sources that the other users don't accept. Wikipedia works by WP:Consensus, and if you are the only one presenting your ideas, with multiple other people opposing, your ideas are simply not going to be in the article. Presenting your argument to me won't help you; I am not familiar enough with this field to take part in the discussion.

You have made a good start by posting at the article's talk page; that's the first step. People are reasonable, and they will listen to and evaluate your point of view. If you have no luck there, you could ask for help at WT:WikiProject Bulgaria or WT:WikiProject Central Asia. But be warned: if "most scholars" believe something and you believe something different, Wikipedia is going to accept the position of "most scholars". Wikipedia may or may not accept the results of a single scientific paper; it depends on the credentials of the author, how often the paper is cited, and similar considerations. Wikipedia mostly reflects the mainstream consensus of scholars; it may or may not present minority views depending on how much support there is for them. See WP:GREATWRONGS. And be careful not to edit war; you can get blocked for edit warring even if you are sure you are right. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN, you answered to him very well, but believe me, if he is who I assume to be, he already heard this from me and other editors, but he won't listen. I am not surprised he contacted you as the user I assume is related to already done a similar thing. The article is in horrible shape, most of the claims the IP stated are not generally accepted and they need to be written according their weight (NPOV), or are totally incorrect (weren't Huns). The template must be there for the readers sake. I'm currently writing the new revision of the article, probably will post it today or tomorrow, and you will see what reliable and mainstream (not outdated and very minor) scholars consider on Utigurs. Note that the IP '46.40.112.239' has almost the same behaviour, POV, editing and use of sources as '188.254.217.159', and recently blocked '93.152.143.113' (removed template and wrote an improper comment on my talk page) and User:PavelStaykov. --Crovata (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Crovata should: 1) removed the template himself because he didn't give any reason for putting it or 2) he could enlighten us what is this "mainstream view"(as the template states) about the origin of the Huns and Utigurs ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.112.239 (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

Thanks for your response here. The discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Qadiani instead. I didn't mention that but I think it should be clear from the talk that it is offensive.--Peaceworld 08:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, sorry. There was no discussion at the Ahmadiyya talk page. If you ask for protection of a page again, maybe you could put a note on its talk page, cross-referencing the other discussion - just to show that discussion is going on somewhere. I must say, though, that the discussion there isn't very convincing - because it is all just assertion, no links or evidence. "I say this." "No, I say that". If you could find any kind of reliable source saying the term is offensive, that would help a lot. As it is, you are saying it is offensive "because I say so", vs. the other side being able to cite the government of Pakistan as a source. You point out that the Pakistani government disapproves of the group, but that doesn't show that the term itself is offensive. Please understand, I'm not disagreeing with you or disbelieving you. I'm just saying that in a content dispute, the viewpoint that Wikipedia accepts is the viewpoint that has references to support it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that the Qadiani article does have a reference supporting the idea that the term "shows contempt". I don't know if it is a Reliable Source but it is at least a reference. If you would cite that reference whenever you get into these arguments about the term, it would help a lot. A possible compromise, at articles like Ahmadiyya, could be to say something like "Ahmadi Muslims are sometimes called "Qadiani", for example by the government of Pakistani, but the Ahmadis themselves find the term to be offensive." I see that Sakimonk put a sentence very much like that - "Although considered a slur" - into the Ahmadiyya article; are you OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. It's probably my fault. I tend to assume that admins and editors are aware of the context of the discussion. Besides that source, there is another RS by Human Rights Watch already provided by another editor. I think there is a difference between saying that "Ahmadis themselves find the term offensive" to saying that "the term is offensive", and it is the latter case according to sources. I don't believe that offensive terms have a place in articles, and particularly the lede, unless the discussion on the articles is concerning the actual term. The term has been mentioned in the context of a deplorable law (which I have discussed at Talk:Qadiani) strongly condemned by human rights orgs. [Edit:The point of discussion was to show that Pakistan government source isn't a reliable source for the identity of a group]--Peaceworld 15:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

tagging Sakimonk for a fairer outlook.--Peaceworld 15:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, but this discussion really needs to be at Talk:Ahmadiyya rather than here. If it isn't there, then "admins and editors" are NOT aware of the context of the dispute - and they can't be expected to find it here. (Remember than when you ask for help, at RFPP or dispute resolution or wherever, your request will almost certainly be handled by a person who knows little or nothing about the subject at hand.) I suggest you start a section at Talk:Ahmadiyya, outlining your position and sources, and stating specifically what you want to change in the article - and invite Sakimonk to discuss it there. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

sure.--Peaceworld 15:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to add one comment, with my interpretation of Wikipedia policy: WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Depending on context we may use words that are offensive to some. If a term is generally regarded as a racial or religious slur, we would not use it in Wikipedia's voice; thus, we would not show it as a synonym for the non-offensive term. If it is regarded as a slur but is used by a major source such as a national government, we should probably note both of those facts, together, somewhere in the article. That's pretty much what the existing sentence "Although considered a slur, the term qadiani is widely used in Pakistan and is the official term used by the government.[8]" does. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This fact belongs to the section Ahmadiyya#Persecution#Pakistan and not the lede.--Peaceworld 16:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Then say so in your comment at Talk:Ahmadiyya, where you are currently calling for the sentence to be removed. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

...with a bit of difference, "Although considered a slur, the term qadiani is widely used in Pakistan and is the official term used by the government".--Peaceworld 16:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

National Grand Lodge

Thanks for the heads-up. He seems to have added the speedy delete template by accident, and later taken it out. The Prince Hall National Grand Lodge article is clearly a duplicate. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for [[:{{{1}}}]]

An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{1}}}|deletion review]] of [[:{{{1}}}]]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 12 and the subject is "Associated RC10". --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Aww... and here I was, hoping this was some article about a fascinating new emoticon, and it turns out just to be a wikitext snafu? Sigh. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

rvt

You really didn't need to go to the trouble to revert on the temp restored article --you could just have copied it from the version in the history -- but no harm done DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. To me it was easier to revert to a version before the AfD template was added and before the temp-restored template was added. But I forgot to delete the categories from the userfied page. Oops! --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Supercentarians

You protected the wrong versions. Those edits were done by non-WOP members. They have no right to mess with the WOP projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The question of who is "right" is currently being worked out at several other venues. I believe you are familiar with them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for approving the semi-protecting for Shila Amzah page! Really appreciated it :) Aiman851 (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. The protection was needed. The unwanted edits were not just unsourced; they were violations of our WP:BLP policy. Let me know if the problem recurs And thanks for the strawberries! --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wonder if you might rethink Jean Dadario Burke?

I agree the article was pretty dismal, but the persons making the two delete votes, in my view, did not adequately research the article, and I don't think it is fair for Ms. Burke to get deleted because her article was substandard.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) The combination of in-depth treatment here, plus numerous daytime Emmy nominations and wins, a long career, suggest Burke was a real maker-and-shaker in the soap opera world.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: Thanks for your note. The consensus at the discussion was pretty clear, and the !voters are credible people who did suggest they had done research. But if you like, I can userfy it to you, so you can add sources and improve the article. Before resubmitting it you should probably ask me to take a look and compare it to the deleted article, so that I can certify that it is significantly different; otherwise it will likely get speedy deleted per WP:G4. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, Thanks for being open-minded. How about this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got it covered already! If you want to use that to create a new article, I'll put a note on the talk page saying that it is significantly different from the deleted article. Let me know when it's live. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok live here. Hope she survives, methinks she deserves it, hope you think similarly...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to thank you for protecting Category:Redirects from moves. Joys! – Painius  01:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can't imagine why that ever became a target, but Wikipedia moves in mysterious ways. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Note

Intruded. Good work at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 02:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice to know I have people picking up after me. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Braun and something else

He does seem to be in a bit of a spot. If that Facebook thing is right, we can expect a flood of candidates. Anyway, have a look at ANI thread 'Searching for deleted articles'. I seem to have sparked something off there... Peridon (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Great idea. I commented. For any interested stalkers, the discussion is actually at AN, not ANI. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Harry Braun got the Message

Dear MelanieN, Given the harsh personal criticism of you and many other Wikipedia editors, Harry Braun's revised Article [Harry W. Braun III] has removed all references and citations to his 2016 presidential campaign or any of his past Congressional or Presidential campaigns. His revised article only focuses on his scientific and engineering publications, references and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry W Braun III (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. have you taken a look at Donald Trump's Wikipedia page? Do you not find it "Promotional"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry W Braun III (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Melanie, I am indeed running for president in the Democratic Primary. Mesa Wind LLC is my company, which was the original developer of a $150 million, 120 MW, San Juan Mesa Wind project in New Mexico that was completed in 2005, at which point the controlling interest was sold to Edison Mission Energy, which provides Mesa Wind with a royalty for the commercial life of the project. Sustainable Partners International was a separate publications company in Phoenix Arizona that included myself and three other individuals: Pete Dixon and John Olson, who were printing specialists, and Lucy Hays who was a proof reader. However, SPI is no longer active.Harry W Braun III (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will fix it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Allah River page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

SPI assistance

Hey MelanieN, I know you have oodles of time (not) but wondering if you have a chance to look over Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baseerwar. Originally it looked like it was going to be only two accounts but as I started to look over the article histories, something else started to come out of the woodwork. I might need another set of eyes on this if it's as many accounts as Im unturning. I don't believe I'm the first to come across this editor, they likely have another archived SPI somewhere else. Mkdw^talk 00:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's all resolved for now. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 11:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the note. You caught me offline. (Yes, I do sleep sometimes.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you be of assistance or does this have to go through red tape?

You recently protected the Page Mujaddid. The concern was edit warring and constant vandalism. The article in question is a simple list linking to other articles. There is almost zero chance of any "new information" being found today which can be added to the said list style article. Therefore seeing that the only thing it is being used for is edit warring and constant vandalism , can you be kind enough to gold lock it for at least a couple of months? I'm quite aware that I should not be using your talkpage for requesting an admin action, but I just thought that as you protected the page before you may be able to protect it again without us having to go through a protection request. I can lodge a request if you want me to. RegardsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat, I'm sorry to see that edit warring has erupted again. But full protection is normally used only for very short periods, like a few days - usually to stop an active edit war in the hopes that the parties will talk. This seems more like a slow motion disagreement, with some discussion going on. At this point, I do not see so hot an edit war as to need full protection. Anyhow, I am not qualified to overrule all the participants and determine what the article should say over the long term. That is done among discussants at the talk page. The main rule is that anything contentious needs to have a reference supporting it. If there is no reference for a given statement or claim, and some people challenge it, it should probably not be in the article. If somebody insists on adding unsourced information which does not have consensus, the person could be reported to WP:3RR. Be aware that if the edit warring is a two-way reversion battle between two parties, both parties may end up blocked at 3RR. Edit warring is considered bad in itself, no matter who is "right" or "wrong". Sorry I couldn't be more help. (P.S. Looking at the history, I see that you are the one who is trying to add unsourced information. If I were to fully protect the article, it would be a version that does NOT include the sentence you are trying to add.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The two "mujaddids" of the fourteenth century are both extremist and heretical sectarianists who are rejected by the majority of sunni muslims. The rest of the actual mujaddids are all removed from the list because for some reason my edits are censored. Why is this? My version lists every single school of thought and is fully sourced and it is the most accurate. The current one is a POV car crash and embarrassing to even look at. Shame on you admin User:MelanieN for enabling such an abuse of the WP:BRD and violating WP:NPOV guidelines.Sakimonk ^talk 21:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN Thanks for pointing out the lack of sources. I have inserted them now.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Please take note of sectarian attack on Mujadid page which needs to be stopped. The comments made by Sakimonk displays his personal hatred towards these movements. In this situation he can't be expected to edit with neutral point of view. His language constitute violation of WP:Civil. Kindly take note of further vandalism by this editor. ScholarM (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have locked the page for three days and given advice on the talk page. Basically, you all need to stop editing based on your personal beliefs, and start editing based on what neutral reliable sources say. We require NEUTRAL sources - not adoring descriptions of a person written by his admirers, and not attacks on one sect of a religion written by another sect of the religion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for stopping edit Warring at Mujadid page. ScholarM (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, but it's the wrong barnstar. I didn't see any vandalism there - just strong differences of opinion. If we will all show respect for each other, I believe it will be possible to work out compromise language that everyone can accept. That's what the "page lock" is for, and that's what the talk page is for. --MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"I'm striking your bolded "Delete" because you already said "Delete" above and you only get to "vote" once. You can comment as much as you like, but only one bolded !vote per person. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"

"If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." Youre not "striking" anything. Thanks.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and sorry if you were offended by my striking through the word "delete". The problem is just that you shouldn't add a bolded "delete" at the start of your second and later comments. There is no problem with the comment itself; as you say, it is a discussion, not a vote. As I said at the AfD page, You are free to comment as much as you like, but please precede your second and later comments with something like Comment rather than repeating "delete". Among other reasons, if you cast more than one bolded "vote", it confuses the bot that archives these discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Honestly, I didnt know there was any other choices besides delete or keep. I also made editions that were lost when I hit save because I don't like the way my comment could be interpreted. So, sorry about that on my part. I was adding that on each re-list new points were made and I had added that my particular stance hadn't changed. Well Im glad you shared that. If I ever participate in a discussion like this and had previously added "delete" Ill add "comment". Thats when wikipedia can be really great, is when through discussion a person can learn things like even nuances. That was a cool experience doing this with you here, have a nice day. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. There's a lot to learn around here, isn't there? But it's worth sticking around and learning. Wikipedia editing can be an interesting hobby. If you have questions in the future, feel free to ask. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There definitely is. It is worth it. I will probably do just that. I really appreciate the sentiment. I already have one thing I would ask about someone who wrote something derogatory about a known gay musician, implying they hooked up with young people. I think it should be brought to an administrators attention because its completely like nothing Ive ever seen here since mid 2000s. Im not sure if this is the place though. So maybe I wouldn't bother you with it. Im not sure. Either way have a great day, and Thank you.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to tell me the name of the article, I'll take a look at it. Wikipedia has very firm policies on articles about living people, see WP:BLP. If you don't want to post the name of the article here for whatever reason, you can email it to me. Just click "email this user" on the Tools menu on the left. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thx for the speedy deletion of my user page

Pyb (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. What a beautiful page you have replaced it with! --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Restoring Catalyst Pharmaceuticals page

Does the recent coverage of Catalyst Pharmaceuticals http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/biz-monday/article27561916.html make it sufficiently notable for a page restoration? It includes patient and business analyst perspectives from a third-party source. Mastermindful (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mastermindful: That is exactly the kind of thing - significant coverage from an independent reliable source - that people found lacking at the Afd discussion. I can't guarantee that it will be considered ENOUGH coverage, but it's worth trying. I will restore the article as a draft in your userspace. That will give you leisure to cite and add the new source and any others you have. When you have a draft article ready, let me take a look at it. If it is significantly different/better than the deleted article, I will move it to articlespace and post a note on the talk page saying it is significantly different. If the article is put into articlespace without a prior review, it is likely to get tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is here: User:Mastermindful/Catalyst Pharmaceuticals I suggest you redo your reference citations into a more standard format before resubmitting the article. See Help:Referencing for beginners. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if you think the additional detail in the userspace version is significantly different from the deleted article. A lot of the controversy surrounding Catalyst Pharmaceuticals and their orphan drug product is similar to controversy surrounding BioMarin, but involves US policy and opinion rather than that of the UK. --Mastermindful (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, User:Mastermindful, it is different enough, and now has some independent reliable sources (including the Miami Herald and other Florida newspapers). Good work. I will move it to article space. You understand that this does not guarantee it will remain in the encyclopedia, but I think it has a good shot. The controversy section needs to be expanded, including this source [1] which was mentioned at the AfD discussion. If you don't care to add that, someone else probably will. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, the article is live, and I added a note to the talk page saying that it is different enough that it should not be speedy-deleted per WP:G4. If anyone tags it, call their attention to that note. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Power

Hi. I wanted to upload a page of one of my favourite journalists Jonathan Power but it is not possible and says the page has been recreated too many times. Could you restore this so I could work on a page? I have good references for it. thank you Greyhound90 (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 12:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Greyhound90, and thanks for your note. The page has been created and deleted four times, so we are going to need some assurance that the article is now acceptable, before it gets allowed into the main encyclopedia. What you should do is upload the page to your own userspace, using the title User:Greyhound90/Jonathan Power. While it is there you can work on it. When you think it is ready, ask me or another administrator to look at the page to see if it now meets Wikipedia standards. One of the concerns that led to previous deletion was that parts of the article were copy/pasted from some other source. That is not allowed here, per WP:Copy-paste, so be sure that the article is entirely in your own words. Other concerns are described here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Power. Requirements for a subject to have an article here can be found at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20