User talk:MelanieN/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

William Foster Nye

There was a speedy deletion notice which I contested. I took the article from an 85.7% Earwig down to a 2% earwig. It was deleteed (can't recover who did it) anyway as a copyuright violation. SNAFU. Please help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussions here and here 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, 7&6. Fram deleted it. Voceditenore has since recreated it from scratch. Problem solved? --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC) (P.S. I'm still on vacation, just peeking in here for a moment.)

Bakhtawar Bhutto-Zardari

This page was nominated for speedy deletion and deleted because of the earlier page discussion. This only ended up making the rounds in news after the deletion occured and not during the discussion. Yes, whilst the entry earlier was put in place by people who had no idea how wikipedia works that does not mean that there should not be a wikipedia on the said 'notable' as is the word here. Because the content was not sufficient earlier I would like to put it properly in place and request not only undeletions but protection as well allowing a select few users to build up the content - in the event that a mere tweet by this 'non-notable' can affect the outcome of elections in constituencies I would like to consider the said person as pretty notable

It was nominated for deletion by a user who sympathizes with an opposing political party and that user created a page for a member of the said party which was deleted - the page itself was not well maintained HOWEVER notability largely may be ascertained by a mere google search in the news and specific events and contributions to society by the individual mentioned across media such as The Scotsman, BBC, Newsweek and other publications internationally as well as published books (ISBN - 978-1-4331-0336-0) Nukout (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

references
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
.

Sources

I am on vacation and not able to deal with this. Feel free to ask another administrator about restoring the article. My comment about your request for "protection as well allowing a select few users to build up the content": in the first place that is not technically possible, and in the second place it casts serious doubt on your own good faith. If your intention here is to make sure that the article complies with your own political point of view, you have come to the wrong website. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I see that you have already tried once to re-create the article, using a slightly different title. That was sneaky, and again it casts doubt on your good faith. The re-creation was speedy-deleted by User:Hut 8.5. Presumably they checked it against the version which I had previously deleted per the AfD, and they found it was basically the same article or too similar to accept. You could try creating a draft, and asking Hut 8.5 if the draft is sufficiently different to be accepted. You can create a draft by titling the article as User:Nukout/Bakhtawar Bhutto-Zardari. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The revised version cited only three of the sources listed above:

• The BBC article about her rap tribute. A very similar source from the NYT was included in the version deleted by the AfD and that doesn't seem to have impressed anyone.
• The Scotsman article which says that she was elected to a position in student government - it is virtually impossible to demonstrate notability through student government and I doubt that would have impressed anyone either
• A source which briefly mentions her name in passing, which doesn't demonstrate notability.

I don't think that any of these sources would have changed the outcome of the AfD, and as the AfD closed less than two weeks earlier I suspect the participants probably evaluated these sources as part of the AfD. I would be happy to restore that version to a draft for you to work on, or you can go to deletion review if you want to dispute my deletion further. Hut 8.5 18:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5 and MelanieN: I was the one who speedy nominated this BLP for deletion and apparently @Nukout: either accusing me or @Ominictionary: (the one who initiated AfD) as the one "who sympathizes with an opposing political party". To set the record straight, Ominictionary accoridng to his/her user page is a Bangladeshi editor so I don't think why he would have issues with a Pakistani political party. On the other hand, If Nukout accusing me, I've created hundreds of BLPs on warranted notable politicians affiliated with the Pakistan Peoples Party, with which Bakhtawar Bhutto-Zardari is affiliated to (one just need to check my contributions) and have no issue with Bakhtawar Bhutto-Zardari. It's just that the subject is not ready to get her own standalone bio as yet. Even though there is coverage on her in RS but I can not see any in-depth coverage. In fact, I think Nukout has some COI, is not acting in the good faith because he's accusing others as political motivated editors and certainly not WP:HTBAE. Its beyond my comprehension how a user with just a few edits knows how to request a deleted article to overturn. --Saqib (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you take a look at a thread, please?

Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump#Recent edits - textbook SYNTH and WEASEL. I'm not sure what exactly is going on, but it's got SPECIFICO making bizarre claims that part of Trump's inauguration speech was actually about open heart surgery, and MrX claiming that there's a policy against quoting parts of a work and demanding that we not include a relevant quote over it with comments like "We can't cherry pick Trump's speech. Period." It all just seems really bizarre, as normally those two are way more lucid than this, and are generally pretty damn good editors. But in this thread, it's like they're both drunk or something. I don't think this is some rhetorical tactic to just be obnoxious until they get their way, but it could definitely pass for that, to someone who wasn't familiar with these two editors. I think another level-headed voice would help, and as I have no idea which side of the content discussion you would come down on, I think you're the perfect person to ask. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Pants, I've added a comment beneath yours. Yours was not civil, it was beneath you, and you could easily have asked either of us on that article talk page or on our own talk pages, to clarify remarks you found unclear. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

SPEC, I'm not interested in arguing this on three different pages, so just let Melanie have a look and decide for herself if she wants to chime in, and what she wants to say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Who asked you to argue. You seem very confrontational recently. MelanieN is on vacation. And I see you've taken my advice and gone to Marek's talk where the facts appear to have been clarified. Thanks for that. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now you're making personal attacks... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Replied at the article talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back! PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Seeking guidance on wikihounding/harassment

Hi, I'm wondering if you can provide some guidance on how to deal with wikihounding/harassment. User:Activist has accused me of having a COI (I don't) and has proceeded to follow me around to various pages, including here, here, here, here, here, and here, while making rather eyebrow-raising edits like this and this. I've never dealt with something like this before, and I'm not sure how I should proceed, so I'd be interested in your feedback. Thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Marquardtika, and thanks for your note. I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the problem here. As for the accusation of COI on your talk page, you explained and that seems to have settled it. I agree that some of the edits to the Claudia Tenney article are overdone (I generally don't like the guilt-by-association attempts to link a politician to the sins of their donors) and I'll take a look at that article; I see some of that has already been trimmed back by other editors; but I don't see how those amount to stalking or harassment. I advise you to just keep editing the way you are editing. Sorry I wasn't more help; feel free to ask someone else. Or if any of my talk page stalkers feel I am missing something, please chime in. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and for your input at Claudia Tenney. I'll keep an eye on what I think is the "following around" of my edits and take more action if needed. Content-wise, lately I've noticed what I view as a non-encyclopedic and recentist trend in political articles of including excessive detail about current campaigns, particularly the accusations traded back and forth between candidates, and the inevitable mini-controversies that die out within one news cycle. Given how negative campaigns are these days, this often results in a lot of undue/coat-rack/NOTNEWS type content finding its way onto these pages. It is probably an election year affliction, but I'm hoping our political articles can start to include more content of the "enduring encyclopedic notability" variety and less of the "here's everything negative the opponents of this person have ever said about this person" variety. Marquardtika (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Jalopnik listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jalopnik. Since you had some involvement with the Jalopnik redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 13:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50