Jump to content

User talk:MelanieN/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55


Speedy deletion of John Glatzel

Hi, Melanie. I noticed you speedily deleted John Glatzel. Did you see the message I'd posted on the talk page contesting the deletion? Unfortunately, as the talk page has been deleted, I can no longer point to exactly what I wrote, but I seem to recall that there were prior versions of the page that did not contain the offending copyvio, and so reversion should have been the proper procedure rather than speedy deletion. Powers T 17:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Powers. The vast bulk of the article (about his college and high school careers) was copy/pasted from the the source indicated, https://cuse.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=1782&path=mlacrosse. The first and last paragraphs were not from that source, but were unsourced or sourced to dead links. Bottom line, there really wasn’t/isn’t much to restore, and I see the copyvio has been in place since 2015. But he clearly does deserve an article. I can restore the previous, February 2015 version, if you will take charge of getting it in shape and properly sourced. I can userfy it to you for that purpose; you can move it to mainspace whenever you think you have it in shape. Is userfying OK with you? --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. Userfying is okay, though I make no guarantees because I can't remember what I saw in the article's history. Powers T 16:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, great. You'll find it at User:LtPowers/John Glatzel. The copyvio is gone. The history shows edits from its creation up to February 2015, but nothing since then. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've fixed up the citations as best I can, though I've had trouble finding sources for his pro career. (Even his LinkedIn page doesn't mention lacrosse at all!) I think, though, it's publishable. Could you move it back to mainspace and restore the talk page? Powers T 12:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done The sourcing is admittedly minimal, but it's enough. Hey, it's lacrosse, it's not usually treated as front-page material. It should be enough because he clearly meets WP:NATHLETE. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Nigerian heiress

Back in May 2015 it was decided to delete (merge) the biography of Bim Fernandez, and you performed some of the subsequent drudge work.

As it turns out, her billionaire father Antonio Deinde Fernandez died a few months later, and two controversies erupted, putting the daughter in the news. The first controversy was the bitter fight between family members about who was legitimate and who was in the will. The second was the daughter's widely published announcement that she was lesbian. Before all that, she sang a song in a music video, "Let's Take It Naked", and co-wrote and sang another song in a music video, "Lipstick", the two videos apparently gathering millions of views online. What do you think about me reviving her biography, based on WP:GNG, with better sources? I'm listing some of them below. Binksternet (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Binksternet, go for it! I don't think you need anyone's permission. In fact back in 2015 at the AfD, we purposely kept the article as a redirect, to retain the history on the possibility that she could become more notable. BTW it looks like there could be a lot of juicy DYK material for use after you expand it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC) P.S. Not too sure about the Reliability of those sources for her being a lesbian; you might be cautious with that part. --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the nod. I started work on it. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Uh oh, looks like I attracted the attention of someone closely involved, who is removing cited text in a non-neutral manner. Do you think the Pink Grenade and Abimbola Fernandez articles would benefit from some level of protection such as extended confirmed? Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, at this point neither article is in a situation to need protection. The other editor removed some material, you restored it, time to talk. I agree they are probably COI in some way - a brand new, special-purpose account - but let's stay focused on the article and the sources. The question of her genre (a perennial Wikipedia battlefield) should be settled by sourcing. And can you find some better/more reliable sources about the lesbian issue? If not, I suggest leaving it out. The three you listed do not have Wikipedia articles so nothing is known about what they are or how reliable they are. In a Google search I found dozens of reports but none from reliable sources; only one had a WP article and that was Nairaland, a social media site. Per BLP we can't report this kind of thing it if is not well sourced. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, good advice. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

I am not asking you to be a referee. I am asking you how I am supposed to deal with an editor who is refusing to co-operate.

"Talk to him, listen to him, make your points to him."

That's all well and good. I'm trying to talk to him. I'm trying to listen to him. But when I ask him for clarification so that I understand exactly what he expects, he refuses to co-operate and instead declares "I'm done wasting my time over your nonsense" and "your words are worthless". Then when I ask an admin what I am supposed to do next, the most I get is "stop talking to me". Can you understand that I am finding this process frustrating? I've got one editor who would just prefer it if I went away and admin who it appears does not care. 1.144.106.98 (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't say anything like that. You have only just started trying to talk to him, and now you are putting words in his mouth and inventing reasons why you can't communicate. Look: He just disagrees with what you are trying to add. If I understand correctly, you want to add things that are not on the official calendar, because they are "planned". He wants proof that they are actually WRC2019 events. So provide him with that proof. Or else stop trying to add them to the WRD2019 page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
He says it right here. I don't know why it's in response to a different IP—it was in response to something I said. 1.144.106.98 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I would have lost patience with that editor too. Edit after edit they are asked for a source, and they don't come up with one but just keep arguing. Anyhow, this is not an article I am part of or a subject I am familiar with. In that subject, you have barely started talking to him. Give it a good faith try to explain, with sources, what you are trying to say. And if your argument is not convincing, that is not something I am going to be able to help you with. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
"Edit after edit they are asked for a source, and they don't come up with one but just keep arguing."
That editor was me, and I did provide a valid source in the original edits to the article. That's where this whole problem started because that's when Pelmeen10 started asking for sources that met two contradictory criteria. He created a paradox that no source could satisfy and when I tried to point that out and asked for a clearer standard, he claimed I was talking nonsense and that my words were worthless. How am I supposed to handle that? 1.144.106.98 (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, here's my final bit of advice: If you are butting heads with one person and can't seem to get anywhere, bring in other people. There are three other editors who have also commented on that talk page, quite recently. You might ping those other three and make your argument to them. (Here's a hint: focus on what you want to say and your sources, not on complaining about the other editor. Show actual proposed language, with the reference attached, just the way you think it should be in the article.) If you can convince them, then your material goes in the article. If they agree with the other person that it should stay out, that is consensus and that is how Wikipedia works: it stays out. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:HospitalCareers

You deleted the draft I was working on for HospitalCareers, Draft:HospitalCareers, could you please restore it so I can seek additional help from other editors? I've applied 7 to 8 revisions to make sure that it's independent and doesn't read like an advertisement, but apparently I'm still struggling. The page reads similar to how CareerBuilder's page is, so I don't understand why talking about the features they provide is considered advertisement. Can you please restore it so I can continue working on it? Thanks. @ MelanieN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckyx55 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for your continuing assistance.

I send flares. You are there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. But kindness - really? The paradox of being an administrator is that what you regard as kindness, some other user regards as... well, their opinion is often not printable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Query

Surely you didn't mean to wipe out an entire thread?[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I moved the entire later discussion to the archive, so that the discussion could be closed with all of the input in one place. I realize that's an unusual approach but I think it was necessary in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC) P.S. I have now added a clarification on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
With respect to this, shouldn't it have been altered to say "Many of his comments and actions have been described as racist or racially charged." I thought the "perceived" thing had been dropped? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Scjessey: I remember droppage of the "by some". No memory of the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
A few people suggested dropping "have been perceived as" in favor of simply "are" racially charged or racist, but that did not gain consensus. I don't think "described" came up during the main discussion, but Galobtter suggested, toward the very end of the discussion, that after it is closed he would suggest replacing "perceived as" with "described as" in a new discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I proposed "Many of his comments and actions have been described as racist or racially charged." very early on in the discussion (August 17), and it was that language that formed the basis of the "both" vote, including your own. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I see. I think all of us, including me, focused on the significant change in your proposal as being to mention both... and didn't even notice the change in the verb. In fact, when I listed the three alternatives at "Arbitrary break 1", I used the word "perceived" and apparently you didn't notice. If you had called attention to that change, I would have made it into a separate discussion, since we were isolating the changes to discuss them individually. But that change as a change was never discussed, until Galobtter brought it up as a new suggestion right at the end. Feel free to bring it up now for discussion. We could try to keep the discussion focused on that one verb, rather than immediately become a complete rediscussion of the entire sentence - although that is likely to happen anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I did notice that Scjessey's version had "described" and when you put it in in "Arbitary break 1" you put it as "perceived", but I figured that bringing it up then would further complicate the discussion and determining consensus; I made a sort of mental note that when the discussion on that completed, that changing to "desecribed" should be discussed next hence my comment. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations - you win the Sherlock award for being particularly observant! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I did indeed notice. If you cast your eye down to "Arbitrary break 2", you'll see I attempted to close the discussion and specifically restated the sentence in question while doing so. It's not really a big deal (that is why I brought it up with you here, rather than at the article talk page), but there is a subtle difference in emphasis between the two versions that might be meaningful to some. I'm personally comfortable with either way of doing it, but it's possible others may be less so. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
And again, your summary was "we have a clear consensus to have both terms"; you didn't mention or call attention to the change in verb. It was just too subtle, apparently, with everyone focused on the question of "both terms" as the issue to be decided. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was strange we deviated from the purprosed and agreed on version. But eh IAR and all that. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Neil Gorsuch: Religion

Thank you for helping to edit the section and page. I wonder if you, as an administrator, could contribute some of your perspectives on the talk page of the article? I think that might be helpful especially to those of us seeking to improve but who do not have the same insight into the best way to integrate that. There seems to be undue weight given to a CNN report, itself not clear, and thus media speculation is confusing this part of his personal life. The Catholic Church does not permit, without exceptional circumstance and usually accompanied by episcopal permission, members to receive communion in a Protestant church. If the article is going to question his membership, a matter of record, in his church, that is the Episcopal Church, then an explanation of the religious particulars involved should be given, yes? maybe? No? Or, maybe a note linking to another appropriate venue? The section claims that Gorsuch might still identify as Catholic but places no information on how the Catholic Church defines itself. That seems to imply he's still a member when he is not. On the talk page, where appropriate, I will happily provide any number of works both scholarly and reporting that detail the view of communicant membership in the Catholic Church as juxtaposed with The Episcopal Church. I hope to see your comments and thoughts on the talk page. I do not shy away from positive editing and constructive criticism of editing. I look forward to what you think is a way to clarify these ambiguities, again largely caused by the one CNN report.SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I replied on the article talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Xkeeper/Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series

Hi,

Do you reckon it's safe to MfD this now? If so, should I do it, or let someone else do it? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If you feel it qualifies; it's certainly been abandoned long enough. I don't remember any backstory about this page, although I certainly remember the backstory about Xkeeper. Could it be usefully made into a List article? Or would it be too much trouble to bring it up to date? I guess that's what MfD is for. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems to qualify as WP:FAKEARTICLE, as it appears to be what was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series. That was 11 years ago. It's full of WP:GAMECRUFT I'm afraid. Adam9007 (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I missed the original AfD. This page is an exact copy of what was deleted. It doesn't qualify for G4, which excludes "content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement", so probably MfD is your best bet. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
MfD'd. Really don't want to upset him, but this just isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Adam9007 (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
If he hadn't done anything with it since 2007, I doubt if he is going to be very upset. He almost certainly forgot it was there. Besides, I think he has washed his hands of Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC) P.S. I don't think I would call it a "fake article". That's kind of harsh. It's not uncommon for people to have article-like subpages in their userspace - articles they are working on, or intend to complete in the future. I would think of this as more in the abandoned draft category. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, 'fake article' is really for want of a better term, as WP:FAKEARTICLE is what has been violated. Not sure that 'abandoned draft' is entirely accurate either. Adam9007 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I've decided to play it safe and call it an abandoned draft. Adam9007 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Want to hear something funny? After I mentioned people having drafts in their userspace, I checked my own userspace - and to my embarrassment I found a couple of three-year-old drafts I had forgotten about! I am cleaning those up today. Pots calling kettles black? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what to say about that... . That's never happened to me. Maybe I'll understand if it ever does. All my userspace drafts were finished (and published) within days, so they were not easy to forget about. Adam9007 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like you are a lot less distractible than I am! 0;-D In my two abandoned-draft cases, I started them but intended to wait for more coverage, and then forgot about them! When I looked today, somebody had already created an article about one of them, and the other had gotten sufficient additional coverage that it was ready to improve and post. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes I think I'm too undistractible. I've just checked them again, and most were published within about 2 days, and some within just hours. One was soon(ish) afterwards promoted to GA. Many also rely on hard-to-access print sources, some of which required some hunting down. It's therefore hardly surprising there weren't already articles on those subjects. It occasionally seems Wikipedia is consuming my life and I often think I should spend less time writing about games and more time actually playing them :). Adam9007 (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
But if you spent your time playing games, you wouldn't have all of us to hang around with! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Oval at Stanford University

Thank you (@Erp:, too!) for your work on the Main Quad article. I wonder if you think the Oval is notable for its own article as well? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting thought, Another Believer, thanks! The question will be whether there is enough coverage about it. Why don't you propose this at the Stanford talk page, where we can do research and compare what we come up with, and see if it reaches WP:GNG? --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary redirect

Stupid question: could you not have just suppressed the redirect? Adam9007 (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I could have, but I wasn't sure it if met the criteria at WP:PMVRC and decided to take a conservative approach. Might as well give the other admins something to do. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd have thought it clearly met WP:PMRC#2. If not that, then definitely WP:PMRC#9. It does say U1 is a common criterion used for suppression of redirects. Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Help with Lead of WP Article

Hi MelanieN, you recently gave me advice that I should post on the Talk page and discuss directly with editors about changes to the WP article on MDPI as I have a CoI (employee). I posted on the Talk page of the WP article some weeks ago (no response), and also on the Talk pages of regular editors (no response, either). The article contains misinformation in the lead section that is not in line with WP’s guidelines for creating a MOS:LEAD. As I understand, the lead section should give emphasis to material that reflects its importance to the topic. Here are the two points I sent to the other editors already:

1) The Beall issue still features prominently in the lead section, despite the fact that MDPI had nothing to do with Beall’s decision to take down his list. MDPI was added end 2014 and, after we contacted him, removed shortly thereafter in 2015. We had no reason to spend time and effort to get his list taken down years after he had removed MDPI for the list. Another open access publisher may have been in contact with his university, but I do not know the details: https://forbetterscience.com/2017/09/18/frontiers-vanquishers-of-beall-publishers-of-bunk/. Therefore, I would suggest that the Beall issue is either discussed in the main body (removed from the lead section), or that after the sentence “Beall later wrote that he had been pressured to shut down the list due to pressure on his institution from various publishers, specifically mentioning MDPI", the sentence is added: "Beall’s supervisor and institution both refuted Beall's claims that there had been any pressure to take down his list", referring to the following source where Beall's former supervisor, Shea Swauger, clarifies that "CU Denver disagrees with Jeffrey Beall’s assertion that he was pressured by the university to take down his website, scholaryoa.com, earlier this year": https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16837/18435.


2) The information in the lead section on the data breach is very misleading, as the e-mail addresses and contact information of authors, editors and board members are publicly available on the MDPI.com website (the e-mail addresses of authors are accessible on the article page, as well as those of editors and editorial board members). We also publish the names of reviewers regularly in the journal. The lead section in its current form gives the impression that sensitive data was stolen and that this is a key issue for MDPI. A lead section should highlight the most important information about a subject. This is simply not the case – a weak source was used to add negative information, without the subject even being discussed in the body of the article. Therefore, I suggest to remove the data breach information from the lead, and move it to a separate section and adding the sentence: "No data of a sensitive nature was impacted and the contact information of authors, editors and board members are made publicly available on the MDPI website per default", referring to the following source: https://haveibeenpwned.com/PwnedWebsites

Any help or support you can provide is greatly appreciated. At present, any negative information about MDPI appears to be immediately added to the WP article, whereas anything else is reversed instantaneously. ErskineCer (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

ErskineCer, you can put {{Request edit}} to draw some attention to your requests for changes to be made Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you help resolve disputes at Elizabeth Warren?

There has been constant edit-warring over the same issues without any resolution for the last few days. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I have not been familiar with that article. And I'm very wrapped up with offline stuff right now and will be for about the next week. I'll see if I can take a look but don't count on it. You might do better to ask someone else. Other admins who sometimes chime in at political articles are Neutrality and Awilley. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll watchlist it and see if I can figure out what's going on. (Don't expect too much, I'm averaging only a couple edits per day.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Kevin McCarthy

It doesn't make much difference to me either way, but in cases such as Kevin McCarthy (California politician), it is actually usual practice not to include a hatnote. When there is full disambiguation in the title, as in this case (only one California politician named Kevin McCarthy), no hatnote is needed. Per Wikipedia:Hatnote, "It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." Cheers, Deli nk (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll remove it. (It makes sense to me to have it, but guidelines are guidelines.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Denise Mueller-Korenek

On 24 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Denise Mueller-Korenek, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Denise Mueller-Korenek is the first and only woman to hold the world record for paced bicycle land speed since its establishment in 1899? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Denise Mueller-Korenek. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Denise Mueller-Korenek), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


Archive 45←Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MelanieN/Archive_52&oldid=881335456"