User talk:MelanieN/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:MelanieN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Dear MelanieN, Thank u for your observations. As u will have seen with the last submission only a summary has been submitted. It is correctly sourced. Nothing is copied/pasted from another source. I have done what you said and created a greyhound90/jonathan power page.
Just to clarify the integrity of the submission in the original version when there were 2 queries about 2 of his documentary films made for the BBC- "It's Ours Whatever They Say" and the Diplomatic Style of Andrew Young"- the following should be noted. It was suggested that Jenny Barraclough made these films and received the awards not Jonathan Power. The fact is at that time Jenny and Jonathan were working as a partnership. Jenny was the director and Jonathan was the reporter (and in the case of the first film, the producer.) The prize given at the Venice Film Festival was not the Silver Lion and Jonathan has never claimed it was. That prize is for cinema feature films. The prize for "It's Ours" was for documentary films category. The film was also chosen for the London Film Festival of that year, 1972. In the case of Venice Jenny Barraclough's name was on the award. In the case of the London Film Festival only Jonathan Power's name was credited. In order to verify this you must contact Jenny at Jenny.barraclough@gmail.com. Regards, Jenny Eklund. Greyhound90 (talk)
- @Greyhound90: I have looked at your draft article. I'm sorry but it is not going to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here. The criteria can be found at WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and specifically WP:AUTHOR. Wikipedia requires that there be significant coverage ABOUT the person from independent third-party sources. Almost every reference in your article is to things written BY Power. That does not count toward notability; there must be notice taken of him by WP:independent WP:reliable sources. You don't list any such sources. And just now in a search I couldn't find anything in reliable sources about him, or about his books or other writing. Getting stuff published is not in itself a criterion of notability. Neither is interviewing important people, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Bottom line, articles about him have been deleted four times; this version would undoubtedly get deleted again. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
They are back
the two guys who cause disruptive editing at the Mujaddid Page are back. whenever you protect the page they just leave wikipedia and stop editing. once your protection expires they come back to disrupt. Can you please gold lock for a longer period this time until the talk page has been used to create content? this is getting really annoying that they both wont even listen to anyone on talkpage and then go straight for the main page edits when protection expires. RegardsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Invitation to WikiProject TAFI
|
| Hello, MelanieN. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.
Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 10:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
- I don't recall whether or not I've sent you an invite before, so here you go. Check out the project! North America1000 10:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks but no thanks. Not my thing. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigma Alpha Pi
Sorry if this is not the correct format. This is my first time doing on mobile. I just got a letter to join some society called Sigma alpha Pi at my University and I noticed you deleted the Wikipedia article on it. I am hoping up can direct me to an archive of it so I can read what the Wikipedia article said. 89.157.146.232 (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I prefer not to revive the article, because it has been created and deleted numerous times. However you can read what Wikipedians thought about the article, and the organization (whose actual name is The National Society of Leadership and Success), at this discussion. In addition, some of the links in that discussion might give you additional information. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Sweere-arse
"MelanieN (talk | contribs) deleted page Sweere-arse (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/sweir)"
Can you please reverse this deletion please? It is not copyright infringement, since the text comes from a book printed in 1888, Charles MacKay's Dictionary of Lowland Scots. An online version of this can be found at -
https://archive.org/stream/dictionaryoflowl00mackrich/dictionaryoflowl00mackrich_djvu.txt
This was listed quite clearly in the reference section of the article which was deleted. The user Jbhunley has been going through a number of my articles trying to get them removed. I have been offline for some weeks partly because of his unwanted attentions.
It does not seem to have crossed anyone's mind that the DSL might have in fact been quoting an older source, which it does do on a regular basis.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello! I am traveling and don't have access to my tools. So I can't see the deleted article. I'll take a look on Monday and see what I can do. Sorry for the delay. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, MacRùsgail, sorry for the delay. Thanks for the link to the book online. It is true I did not notice the publication date of 1888 when I deleted the article, and that was my error. If the book had been published in the United States, that would make its contents WP:Public domain. But the book was published in London and Edinburgh, and I don't know what the rules are in that case. I will ask Wikipedia's expert on copyright matters what to do. @Moonriddengirl: are you available for a consultation? The article is Sweere-arse. If this article was NOT eligible for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, please let me know - or better yet, just go ahead and restore it. (BTW I have my doubts if it qualifies for an article here, because of WP:DICDEF, but that's another issue and not subject to speedy.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, MelanieN and MacRùsgail. I've restored the article, as the content was published in the 19th century. :) Wikipedia:PD notes that while there is one exception in the U.S. (and it's really obscure), content published anywhere in the world before 1923 is regarded as public domain. Current requirements at Wikipedia:Plagiarism call for acknowledgement of that copying, but those requirements were not in place in 2006 when the article was created. However, in order to conform, I've added an attribution template. I've also procedurally re-launched the AFD, since the original issue was never evaluated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- According to this, copyright expires 70 years after the author's death, so yes it appears to be public domain. Adam9007 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's actually way more complicated than that, Adam9007. :/ It is public domain, but the laws that make it so have evolved dramatically in the last century. Current laws may or may not apply to older content, and what is public domain in the UK may not be public domain in the US. And vice versa. (US law governs here, although individual editors are also subject to the laws of their own jurisdiction.) I recommend this fabulous, annually updated resource from Cornell University which goes a little bit into the complexity with what's PD in the US. Content can actually be under copyright in the US longer than in its original publication country, courtesy of the URAA. The thing that makes this case easy is "Date of publication < 1923", which on Wikipedia means public domain. Except when it doesn't. See footnote 1 of WP:PD. Anyway, publication in English prior to 1923, our policy presumption is PD. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Moonriddengirl: Thanks for the help - and the lesson in policy! I will remember this for next time. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's actually way more complicated than that, Adam9007. :/ It is public domain, but the laws that make it so have evolved dramatically in the last century. Current laws may or may not apply to older content, and what is public domain in the UK may not be public domain in the US. And vice versa. (US law governs here, although individual editors are also subject to the laws of their own jurisdiction.) I recommend this fabulous, annually updated resource from Cornell University which goes a little bit into the complexity with what's PD in the US. Content can actually be under copyright in the US longer than in its original publication country, courtesy of the URAA. The thing that makes this case easy is "Date of publication < 1923", which on Wikipedia means public domain. Except when it doesn't. See footnote 1 of WP:PD. Anyway, publication in English prior to 1923, our policy presumption is PD. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- According to this, copyright expires 70 years after the author's death, so yes it appears to be public domain. Adam9007 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, MelanieN and MacRùsgail. I've restored the article, as the content was published in the 19th century. :) Wikipedia:PD notes that while there is one exception in the U.S. (and it's really obscure), content published anywhere in the world before 1923 is regarded as public domain. Current requirements at Wikipedia:Plagiarism call for acknowledgement of that copying, but those requirements were not in place in 2006 when the article was created. However, in order to conform, I've added an attribution template. I've also procedurally re-launched the AFD, since the original issue was never evaluated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
deletion
Have reference from a newspaper website. Could you reverse the deletion for deleted article Frank Page(cartoonist)18:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Paginator (talk) Squirrel Appreciation Day
[1] Paginator (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Paginator
- ^ Page, Frank. "Squirrel Appreciation Day". Rome Daily Sentinel. Rome Sentinel Company. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
- Hello, User:Paginator! Sorry for the delay in replying, I have been traveling. Unfortunately, another Rome Sentinel reference is not enough to restore the article about Frank Page, or about his cartoon, Bob the Squirrel. You can see the community's discussion about the cartoon here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob the Squirrel. That article was deleted because it did not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here, namely, coverage by WP:independent WP:reliable sources. The Frank Page article was deleted for the same reason. Those articles actually had references from the Rome Sentinel. But it was pointed out that the Rome Sentinel is not an independent source, because it publishes the cartoon, and also employs Frank Page.[1] (BTW that's Rome, New York, not Rome, Italy). Unless Page or his cartoon start to get more widespread and independent coverage, they are not going to qualify for an article here. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN! Here are some more sources...
- http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/J2575-2011
- http://www.editorandpublisher.com/Archive/-Comics-Sherpa-Is-Guide-to-Possible-Syndication
- http://geek-news.mtv.com/2011/12/16/kleefeld-on-webcomics-41-frank-page-interview/
- http://comicscoasttocoast.com/podcast/episode-152-the-frank-page-interview-2-years-later/
- http://comicscoasttocoast.com/podcast/episode-79-the-frank-page-interview-part-2/
- http://comicscoasttocoast.com/podcast/episode-63-the-frank-page-interview/
- http://wkal1450.com/cartoonist-frank-page-bob-the-squirrel-says-the-things-that-i-wish-i-could-say/
- http://interestingcool.com/?p=52
- http://mentalfloss.com/article/54634/happy-squirrel-appreciation-day
- http://comicbastards.com/comics/web-comic-of-the-week-bob-the-squirrel/
- http://www.jasonloveslife.com/frank-page/
- http://www.wktv.com/features/Local_cartoonist_seeks_volunteers_to_help_make_giant_snow_squirrel.html
- http://www.andertoons.com/cartoon-blog/2004/08/frank_page_insi.html
- http://www.coolmirc.com/a-squirrel-drawing-a-day-for-a-year/
- Paginator (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Paginator
- Well, that's an interesting collection of sources. Most of them are blogs and such, things that don't count toward notability, but I see a few sources that taken together might give you enough meat for an actual, referenced biography of Frank Page. They are:
- A decent mention at Editor and Publisher.
- Local TV coverage at WKTV - purely local (like the Rome Gazette) but it helps.
- MTV Geek News interview - this looks like the best source for biographical information.
- The Rome Arts Hall of Fame - not much but doesn't hurt.
- A passing mention at Mental Floss - not much but shows that a national magazine has at least heard of him.
- You can also use the Rome Sentinel material, and even his own web page, as a source of information, but they do not contribute to his notability.
- Here's what I would suggest: Start an article from scratch, in your own userspace rather than in the main encyclopedia. Oh, good, I see you already have done this, at User:Paginator/Frank Page (cartoonist). Work on it there for a while. Take a look at some other articles, say Bill Amend or Scott Adams or Bill Watterson, to see how it should be formatted (lead paragraph, biographical information, etc.) Use the references to verify the information you put in; see WP:Referencing for beginners if you're not familiar with how to cite references. When you think you have it ready, ping me and I'll take a look and advise you whether to go ahead and move it to the encyclopedia. If I think it has a shot at being kept, I will put a note on the talk page of the article, so that it doesn't get immediately deleted again. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
YGM and a note!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
- Hi Melanie! Its been long since we talked last, how are you? I want to make an announcement but I can't figure out any other way but to drop a note on few intimate editor's talk page, including you! I appreciate if you can have few minutes to spend on reading this thread on my talk page. If you feel that I deserve a scholarship, I appreciate your endorsement on that thread. Please don't consider this an unusual spamming, I don't have any other way of announcing this. Thank you very much! Have a nice day! Jim Carter 12:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Stefan Molyneux vandalism and SPA IP edits
Hello. Could you please raise the level of protection so as to prevent these single purpose IPs from debasing the article? Whatever the current protection level, it is not working. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
- @SPECIFICO: Thanks for your note. The article currently has pending changes protection. That means that edits by IPs or non-autoconfirmed users have to be approved or rejected by someone before they become part of the article. That protection actually seems to be working. I do see one or two recent IP edits that you objected to or reverted, but I don't see any outright vandalism by IPs. Those comments had been accepted by other editors who have the Pending Changes Reviewer right, so they weren't clearly vandalism. Maybe a content dispute? I don't see any attempt to discuss it at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for your reply. These IP edits are almost exclusively from single purpose accounts whose mission is POV editing on this article. As often occurs on the WP articles of fringe bloggers and internet self-publishers, this WP article has repeatedly attracted tech-savvy fans whose mission is not related to the larger goals of the WP community. This article has a sad history of disruptive editing, in my opinion, and would benefit from PP. I think I understand your point about pending change reviewers but setting aside whether it's outright vandalism, the protection is not working, in my opinion. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to be asking for indefinite or long-term semi-protection. But that is rare and is imposed only when all else has failed. Page semi-protection is generally only used for a short time and when vandalism is occurring frequently; it expires as soon as the protecting admin thinks is feasible. Semi-protection is specifically NOT supposed to be used to give the advantage to a confirmed editor in a content dispute with IPs. "Semi-protection should not be used ... to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." In this case, the disputed edits are not clearly vandalism and not all that frequent; they are occurring now and then over a long period of time. That's what pending changes protection was invented for. If the edits are actually vandalism, they will not get accepted. If they are accepted by PC reviewers, that suggests they are not overt vandalism. This looks like a dispute between you and the IPs, about whether or not to include the subject's opinion about global warming. Such disputes should be taken to the talk page. Start a section there, and explain why you think the material needs to be in the article. If some other people agree with you, then you have current consensus on your side, and you have other people besides yourself doing the reverting. If the other party persists after consensus has been established, there are ways to deal with that. Right now it is just your opinion against theirs. I see that you have been following this article for a long time, and in one recent edit summary you mentioned that there may be something somewhere in the archives about the same issue. Maybe you could copy a part of that earlier discussion to the current talk page, or at least repeat the main point and provide a link to the archive. I understand your frustration, but IMO a stronger type of protection is not called for. Of course, feel free to take your request to WP:RFPP. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi I think that if you take a closer look at the current and past editor behavior in this article, you'll see that the current level is not going to address the problem. We now have an IP edit-warring reviewer who declined the IP's edit. I have no bias against IPs, but these are single purpose accounts who are only editing what they appear to feel is unfavorable information concerning Mr. Molynuex. At any rate I don't mean to hassle you about this. I only came here because you were the one who responded to my request for PP and I'd hoped you would follow up. Under the circumstances, I'm not going to invest the time to repost information to the talk page and will most likely join the legion of editors and admins who abandoned this article in the course of past episodes. Thanks over and out. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, well, you have invested a lot of time talking to me about it. That time would be better spent documenting your position on the talk page - or asking again at RfPP to see if some other admin feels the situation warrants semi-protection. --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, posting on the article talk page would not be a better use of my time. I've already stated the relevant issues in my edit comments. As to your suggestion that my time would be better spent asking at RfPP, you're presenting a false dichotomy since nothing I've done here precludes that. I thought I'd made clear, by explaining why I came here again, that I did not continue the thread in order to challenge your decision to stand back but rather to provide what I had intended to be a gracious explanation as to why I bothered you here. Neither of us has any responsibility to rescue any single article from whatever dysfunctions may befall it. Instructing folks on how best to allocate their time, in the absence of real misbehavior is very unlikely to promote fruitful interaction. Again, intending to depart. Feel free to post the last word here, I promise not to return anytime soon. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, well, you have invested a lot of time talking to me about it. That time would be better spent documenting your position on the talk page - or asking again at RfPP to see if some other admin feels the situation warrants semi-protection. --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi I think that if you take a closer look at the current and past editor behavior in this article, you'll see that the current level is not going to address the problem. We now have an IP edit-warring reviewer who declined the IP's edit. I have no bias against IPs, but these are single purpose accounts who are only editing what they appear to feel is unfavorable information concerning Mr. Molynuex. At any rate I don't mean to hassle you about this. I only came here because you were the one who responded to my request for PP and I'd hoped you would follow up. Under the circumstances, I'm not going to invest the time to repost information to the talk page and will most likely join the legion of editors and admins who abandoned this article in the course of past episodes. Thanks over and out. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to be asking for indefinite or long-term semi-protection. But that is rare and is imposed only when all else has failed. Page semi-protection is generally only used for a short time and when vandalism is occurring frequently; it expires as soon as the protecting admin thinks is feasible. Semi-protection is specifically NOT supposed to be used to give the advantage to a confirmed editor in a content dispute with IPs. "Semi-protection should not be used ... to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." In this case, the disputed edits are not clearly vandalism and not all that frequent; they are occurring now and then over a long period of time. That's what pending changes protection was invented for. If the edits are actually vandalism, they will not get accepted. If they are accepted by PC reviewers, that suggests they are not overt vandalism. This looks like a dispute between you and the IPs, about whether or not to include the subject's opinion about global warming. Such disputes should be taken to the talk page. Start a section there, and explain why you think the material needs to be in the article. If some other people agree with you, then you have current consensus on your side, and you have other people besides yourself doing the reverting. If the other party persists after consensus has been established, there are ways to deal with that. Right now it is just your opinion against theirs. I see that you have been following this article for a long time, and in one recent edit summary you mentioned that there may be something somewhere in the archives about the same issue. Maybe you could copy a part of that earlier discussion to the current talk page, or at least repeat the main point and provide a link to the archive. I understand your frustration, but IMO a stronger type of protection is not called for. Of course, feel free to take your request to WP:RFPP. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for your reply. These IP edits are almost exclusively from single purpose accounts whose mission is POV editing on this article. As often occurs on the WP articles of fringe bloggers and internet self-publishers, this WP article has repeatedly attracted tech-savvy fans whose mission is not related to the larger goals of the WP community. This article has a sad history of disruptive editing, in my opinion, and would benefit from PP. I think I understand your point about pending change reviewers but setting aside whether it's outright vandalism, the protection is not working, in my opinion. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
You received a couple of emails on Project WIN. --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- You have received another email. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Decals42 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)decals 42
Re: Institute for the Future deletion
Melanie, I believe it is also rude to delete the pages of 50 year old institutions that work with thousands of people every year. Wikipedia, for all extents and purposes, is a public resource, and yet the rules and requirements are increasingly inscrutable and inaccessible to all but the small contingent of people who follow them. No effort was made to help the Institute for the Future meet a requirement they do not understand. Does every single human in the world need to be a wikipedia expert in order for wikipedia to accurately reflect the world they live in? I would guess that very few institutions meet the notability requirement as described. What periodicals devote time specifically to talking about the existence of institutions? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decals42 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for your note, User:Decals42. I understand your frustration. The institution is important to you and you want it to have a page here. But not every organization can have a page here, even if it is well established and does good work. Our criteria for an article about an organization are laid out here: WP:ORG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it does not make value judgments about who does good work and who does not, or who is "worthy" and who is not. We are a tertiary source, meaning that we base everything here on information from reliable secondary sources, like newspapers, magazines, books, etc. If those sources find the subject important enough to write about it in detail, then we have an article. If there is NOT significant coverage from independent reliable sources, then we do not have an article. I would be very happy to help recreate an article about the Institute of the Future, if the necessary sources existed.
- So I just spent some time looking for sources. The best source I found was this which devotes a paragraph to the Institute. If I could find several other reliable-source references like that, actually giving some detail ABOUT the Institute, we could think about having an article. But all the others I found were passing mentions along the lines of "so-and-so works at the Institute for the Future" - in other words, not significant coverage about the Institute itself. My search was complicated by the fact that there is also an "Institute for the Future" at New York University, and an "Instititute for the Future of Work" in Switzerland.
- But there's also some good news: In my searching I found lots of information about the Institute's director, Jane McGonigal. I was going to suggest you consider doing an article about here. But it turns out she already has one: Jane McGonigal. I suggest you add some more information about the Institute for the Future to that page. --MelanieN (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Decals42 (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)decals42 Hi Melanie, thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response. I believe the best place to look for mentions of the Institute for the Future is in books published by people who have been affiliated with it, like Jane McGonigal - though there are others who have their own pages, such as Olaf Helmer and Roy Amara. They both have active articles with now-dead links to the Institute, which suggests to me that the Institute would benefit from being a separate article that they could all link to. I've found some additional periodicals, in book form, that hopefully meet these requirement better:
Thanks.
- Now you're talking! The first two books provide independent coverage about the institute and could be used to demonstrate notability. I suggest you create an article in draft form, using some of these sources you have found. Then check with me or with User:Kudpung, the administrator who deleted the article, to see if the new article demonstrates sufficient notability to be kept. If we think it is likely to be kept, we will move it to article space (the actual encyclopedia) for you. The ultimate decision about whether to keep the article will depend on community consensus.
- I will "userfy" the article for you. That means I will put it into your private userspace, not part of the encyclopedia, where you can work on it at your leisure. You may not find the original article very useful, since it had no independent sources at all, but at least it will give you a format to start with. You should use the sources you have found to verify facts in the article. If you don't know how to format citations, help can be found here: WP:Referencing for beginners. Please remember that the best sources are INDEPENDENT sources - not written by the Institute, or by people associated with the Institute, but by outsiders. That appears to be the case with your first two books, as well as the Nature article I found. Institute-associated sources can be used to verify some facts, but independent sources are needed to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The article is here for you to work on: User:Decals42/Institute for the Future . (If the categories look funny, I have disabled them since things in userpages should not be listed in categories. They can be reactivated when the article is moved to article space.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Decals42 (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)decals 42 I've modified the existing article to include some of these (and other) references to third party periodicals and books that support the claims made in the article. If these contributions are appropriate, can you please assist me with next steps? Thank you for your help with this.
- OK, good - this is a lot better. However, I notice that you didn't really USE the references - you simply added them to the text of the previous article, in some cases without any relationship between where you put them and what they say. References footnotes are supposed to support or confirm the information where they are placed. (You remember footnotes from school: you used a footnote to support something you just said.) But some of these seem to be almost randomly placed, just dropped into the article, even if they have nothing to do with the statement they are supposed to be supporting. Also, you didn't add any of the new information that the references contain; adding it would make the article stronger.
- For example, the "Predictions about the decade" article does not say anything about what programs the Institute offers to its clients, so it shouldn't be used as a source for that information. Instead, to use that reference you could add a sentence saying that the Institute puts out a 10-year forecast for the future every year. The Coren article does not say anything about who the clients are, or about the shift in target audience from governments to businesses - so it should not be used as a source for that information. Use it for something it actually says. The Helmer book describes the Institute as "the first independent research organization devoted exclusively to futures research"; you might want to add that somewhere. In other words, USE the sources, don't just throw them into the article. One other thing: the Marina Gorbis reference is a dead link, you should fix that. Thanks for your work on this article, we are getting close to restoring it to the encyclopedia - after a few improvements. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. Please add your signature to the END of your message, not to the beginning. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Braun for President Update
Hello MelanieN,
The BraunforPresident.US website has been published since September 8, and while I did provide a formal announcement of my campaign in a press release on September 14th, I have not yet received any published articles on my campaign. I have done several interviews that have been posted online, and one radio interview on WGST Talk Radio in Atlanta. I have also received an endorsement from engineering professor T. Nejat Veziroglu, the president of the International Association for Hydrogen Energy (iahe.org) on September 15th.
I have mentioned to 75.108 that Nejat should have his own Article on Wikipedia, given his 93-page resume [[2]], most of which are publications.
My press release campaign is continuing, and next week I will be meeting with the CNN and Fox news networks here in Atlanta in the hopes of getting the critical television news coverage that is needed to get invited into the first Democratic debate in Nevada on October 13, 2015. Please let me know if you have any other questions.Harry W Braun III (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring on vg console system software articles
Hi Melanie, I saw that you protected the PS3 system software article. Would you be able to help enforce the consensus at the AfD to remove the change logs from the related articles (and protecting where you see fit)? (E.g., enforcing the consensus on edits such as this.) I participated in the AfD so I'd rather not be involved. – czar 17:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Czar: Thanks for your note. I'd like to help, but this argument is way over my head. I am not familiar with the whole genre of video games, and I wouldn't know a changelog if it bit me. I know an edit war when I see one, which is why I imposed the protection, but the subject matter is beyond my areas of expertise. I understand your reluctance to act as an admin here, because of your involvement at the AfD, but maybe you could find an admin who is more familiar with this area than I am. And of course you are free to act as an editor. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus removed protection
Previously, there used to be sysop-move protection in that Wikipedia:Consensus page. I see that you had made a mistake with adding the wrong protection at one point, but now I notice that the move-protection is removed. Can you please re-add that sysop-move protection that you had accidentally removed? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Done Thanks for catching that. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Strictly Come Dancing
I find it quite rude how Strictly Come Dancing has been protected. Although I don't have an account I enjoy editing for shows and would appreciate if it was unlocked. If someone is creating an edit conflict, Block their account from editing. Simple — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.126.177 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that you have made constructive edits to the article Strictly Come Dancing (series 13). However, multiple other unregistered users were adding unsourced material, and that was the reason for the protection. If you were to register an account, semi-protection would not be a problem for you. If you have your own reasons for not wanting to register an account, that is your privilege, but unfortunately this kind of situation will come up now and then. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Please reconsider the deletion of this bio. Given the comment in this yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald (below) I'm sure many people will be looking for information on this notable political figure.
"The current NSW Liberal Party president, Trent Zimmerman is the front runner to replace Mr Hockey in the seat of North Sydney, with the moderate faction claiming a strong hold on the numbers in local branches.
No date has been set for a byelection yet but insiders were not ruling out a factional battle over the preselection, with predictions the Right faction would resist Mr Zimmerman taking the plum seat.
Mr Zimmerman is a long time mover and shaker in the so called 'wet' faction of the Liberals both in state executive and behind the scenes. He has worked for Mr Hockey as a staffer and is currently a senior policy adviser at the lobby group, Tourism and Transport Forum (TTF). He is openly gay and is the current state president of the party."
14:49, 5 February 2015 Deor (talk | contribs) deleted page Trent Zimmerman (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Zimmerman) Castlemate (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note, Castlemate, but you're talking to the wrong person. The article was deleted by User:Deor and that is who you should be take this request to. As you know, the article was deleted by community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Zimmerman back in February. You say there is now an additional reference; that may or may not be enough to meet the standards for an article here, which are found at WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:BIO. In any case, it would be up to Deor whether to restore the article, userfy it (that means put it into your private user space where you can improve it), or leave it deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you would reconsider this PROD deletion go to AfD instead. The reason is the French version of the article is pretty long and has sources[3], it's a historic figure from the 17th century who seems to have a fair number of refs available on Google Books and likely elsewhere. I don't know what the original article looked like but it may just be oversight no one bothered to look for sources. -- GreenC 16:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Green Cardamom: I'll be glad to restore it and AfD it - or userfy it to you if you prefer. The original article was an unsourced stub, created in 2012. Before deleting I did a quick search myself; I found quite a few mentions, all in French, but offhand nothing looked to me like SIGNIFICANT coverage. I also noticed that there is a sizable article at fr.wiki. Would you like a chance to work on it yourself, or would you rather I send it it to AfD where others can search for sources? --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I made a stub. There are many other sources on Google Books, but they are snipit view in French. They can be brought up in AfD as evidence of notability, but can't incorporate into the article without knowing exactly what they say. If you prefer to AfD it I understand but hope this is sufficient to hold it until someone with better resources and French speaker works on it. There's no doubt he was an important French writer of the 17th century. -- GreenC 00:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Good work. It's now a REFERENCED stub and looks good to me. I see no need to AfD it, and I will put an old-prod notice on the talk page so that nobody tries to prod it a second time. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. I noticed that the article is an orphan. So I was going to put a link at Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont. But Tronchay isn't mentioned there, and I didn't have a source, and I wasn't quite sure about the relationship between them. Were Tillemont's writings compiled and published posthumously by Tronchay? --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Good idea added the backlink. -- GreenC 01:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I probably have a weird sense of humor, but this phrase - publication of both works was not completed until after his death by his secretary Michel Tronchay - struck me as funny in a dark sort of way. Death by his secretary? I reworded it, hope you don't mind. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah it could be read that way! -- GreenC 14:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I probably have a weird sense of humor, but this phrase - publication of both works was not completed until after his death by his secretary Michel Tronchay - struck me as funny in a dark sort of way. Death by his secretary? I reworded it, hope you don't mind. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Good idea added the backlink. -- GreenC 01:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I made a stub. There are many other sources on Google Books, but they are snipit view in French. They can be brought up in AfD as evidence of notability, but can't incorporate into the article without knowing exactly what they say. If you prefer to AfD it I understand but hope this is sufficient to hold it until someone with better resources and French speaker works on it. There's no doubt he was an important French writer of the 17th century. -- GreenC 00:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
List of Gameday Locations Delete Decision
MelanieN,
Can you please review your decision to delete the list of ESPN College Gameday locations article? It was an extremely useful archive that isn't replicated anywhere else on the Internet -- not just for sportswriters, but for fans as well. It's a lot of information. Even if we can just have it back to re-create it on the main page for ESPN Gameday, that would be a huge benefit. Losing it in the middle of the season, for reasons that don't make any sense (I read the entire debate), isn't good for anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.118.194 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hello! The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locations of College GameDay (football) was pretty clear. People cited WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT as well as noting that the article was mostly unsourced. You are welcome to take it to deletion review if you wish. However, I should warn you that "it's useful" is an example of an "argument to avoid in deletion discussions", and "it's not replicated anywhere else on the Internet" is another way of saying "unsourced". But feel free to take it to DRV. I will not argue against restoration, and if the consensus at DRV is to put the information into the College GameDay main article, I will restore the information to whoever is going to put it there. (Somebody seems to have started trying to do something like that as we speak.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:MelanieN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |