User talk:MelanieN/Archive 4

Help requested

Ukulele seems to be Kiswahili speaker. Wonder, does it mean "yelling"?

I'm here at your talk page because your help was suggested to be beneficial in "rescuing" of my article. :) Thank you Greenbd (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I replied at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fire information

Hey Melanie, you might find this site useful for current information about the fire. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin, that was sweet of you to remember that I was having trouble finding information! That looks like a very useful site. MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Lundy Murders

Hi Melanie - back in May you were doing some great work on the Lundy murders article trimming down the WP:UNDUE issues and trying to rebalance the article. I thought I'd let you know that 'editors' that were doing the reverts of your edits have been banned - Offender9000 was running a number of sockpuppets. We are chipping away at trying to return articles that Offender9000 edited back to a NPOV, but there are loads of them :(. So if you have the time to come back and help do some further work on this article it would be much appreciated and supported. Clarke43 (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the good news, Clarke. I had given up on that article and walked away, but I'll give it another try. However, it will have to wait a week or so, due to offline issues. --MelanieN (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent news! I can perfectly understand why you walked away.... Anyway I've taken a broad swing at the Lundy article today and I see Stuart has done some additional edits to further clarify things, but it needs some focused addition from someone to really sort it. If you are happy to do that, it would be much appreciated :) Clarke43 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Did some rewriting; I think the article is now balanced and encyclopedic. --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work! The article looks really good now. Thanks so much for coming back to edit it! If you feel like a challenge, the David Bain article has similar issues/tags caused by the same editor..... :) Clarke43 (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Email

Hi Melanie, I see you do not have email enabled. I would like to find out if you are interested in becoming an admin. Feel free to email me or reply on my talk page. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Wednesday afternoon

Hi, MelanieN. Hope you can make it tonight to the San Diego meetup. I'd like to meet you. We could talk about trying to make California a GA. :-) The U-T has a listing. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I can't make it; I have a conflict this afternoon. Thanks anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to miss you! We can still talk about big plans. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The Cadfael Chronicles are available as e-books

I have been checking the Publication History on each of the novels in the series, and all are available as e-books. Hence the original sentence, then vandalized (?) by someone. I am restoring the original sentence, but wonder what sort of references, if any, are needed. Such references are in the articles on each book. ScribD has them, as one source. Is it necessary to repeat sources from the Publication History sections?Prairieplant (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as you are satisfied that e-books ARE available, I don't think we need a reference. Thanks for fixing this. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, more than satisfied.Prairieplant (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Walter Leake

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John E. Hart

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Roland De Wolk

MelanieN, I double checked all of your edits at Roland De Wolk, and I think you made some excellent edits and additions there. Thank you for your improvements! Crtew (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It can be gratifying to see an article that seemed to be heading toward deletion instead saved and improved dramatically. Thanks to you, MelanieN, and to Crtew too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

And to you, Cullen. I can't believe I wrote "dismal" instead of "dismissal"! (selftrout) Thanks for tidying up after me. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A favour

Could you have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hope Construction Materials (2)? I think it might be OK now, but I'd like a second opinion (and possibly help with refs if needed...). I'm off on my travels again for a week starting tomorrow and may be erratic in getting online. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Naud/Mission Junction

I see Mission Junction was deleted, and Naud Junction (the one on my watchlist) was as well. I think it has possibilities. Could you link me to what you mentioned in the AfD about Naud Junction? pbp 00:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, PBP! Here was my comment:

In a Google News search I do find many references to Naud Junction [1] - a very old term in LA history apparently, 1890s through 1910s, long gone by the 1940s.[2] There could be an interesting historical article there - but where is the evidence that Naud Junction is the same as Mission Junction? And where is the evidence that either of them was or is a neighborhood, as opposed to just a railroad stop? --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If you do decide to write something about Naud Junction let me know, I might try to help. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wanderful Media

Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanderful Media (2nd nomination) and cast your vote. I am contacting all those who voted last time. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Belle Benchley

Hi Melanie If you search a little it will come clear that birthdates 28 aug 1882-17 dec 1972 are correct, the gravestones are the same in Find a grave as in Graveyard rabbit (http://ssdcgraveyardrabbit.blogspot.se/search?q=Belle+Benchley) kind regards Hobe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobe (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Hobe, and I apologize for undoing your edit. As you pointed out, her gravestone says 1972 [3]. That ought to settle the matter, so I will change it back to 1972 as you had it. But it turns out that there is a big discrepancy among supposedly Reliable Sources about this. The San Diego Historical Society [4] and the San Diego Zoo's own archives [5] both say 1973. I will contact the Historical Society and ask them about this. Meanwhile we will go with what it says on her actual gravestone. Thanks for catching this. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Check back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Vincenzo Castellano; someone's called for you to be deleted. 2001:18E8:2:1020:394A:B524:DC74:9E3A (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning - I'll watch my back! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

City cats

If a person is in a sub category, such as the city council cat, then they are already a member of the parent cat (the politician). Just like once they are moved into a subcategory such as the politician category, then they do not remain in the parent cat (people from San Diego). See WP:SUBCAT. As in, we already know they are a politician because they are/were a member of the city council or mayor. It does not mean that is the only thing they are, just like they can be in a sister car such as businesspeople from SD or sportspeople from SD. It is the same reason why they are not in the Category:City councillors category along with the SD one. Membership in the sub/child cat includes membership in the parent cat. And FYI, this is a standard categorization scheme as to politicians, so please consider reverting yourself as the guidelines are quite clear on topic. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, I am familiar with Wikipedia's practice of removing something from the main category if it gets put into a subcategory. And I hate it - it means that most of the things that belong in the parent category get buried two or three layers deep, so they aren't visible when you look up that category. I was kind of hoping that logic might allow for an exception in this case, but I guess not. I'll revert. BTW I did hear that somebody was working on a whole new way of managing the categories, so that things in subcategories could still be visible in the parent category as well, but maybe that was just a pipe dream.

BTW Aboutmovies, since you seem to be heavily involved with categorization - could you pass along a suggestion, or tell me where to suggest it? There's a big problem with the categorization of actors/actresses. Right now, Wikipedia-wide, we have "actresses" as a subcategory of "actors". This is exactly the same misogynist thinking that got Wikipedia such a black eye when the world discovered that we had subcategorized "female writers" from the category "writers," leaving all the men but no women in the parent category. We fixed that public relations disaster by making an explicit exception to the rule you are citing, so that everyone in the "male" and "female" writers category is also listed in the parent category. Now with actors, it may make sense to separate actors from actresses, since the words specify gender - but it does NOT make any sense to make actresses a subcategory of actors. That's completely illogical. They should be same-level subcategories of the parent category; in other words both Category:Actors from San Diego, California and Category:Actresses from San Diego, California should be subcategories of Category:People from San Diego, California by occupation. See what I mean?

BTW I see we have the same stereotyped thinking, in reverse, with the category Category:Male nurses. Not to mention Category:African-American nurses. Apparently the standard category includes only white female nurses. We really need to figure out a better way to deal with these situations. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with all of the categorization rules, but I understand why they exist and tend to follow them. I'm a rules kind of person, as otherwise you end up with 70,000 preferences, which is not manageable. Personally, I find cats with more than say 100 articles in them to be too big, and think they should be diffused, but at the same time it would be nice to have an option somewhere to see all the articles in a category tree with a simple link from the parent cat. I think there are some tools out there that do it, but not integrated with Wikipedia.

As to the gender issue, I wish they had stayed as just actors and treat that as a gender neutral term, or come up with a neutral term (actingpeople?), but I generally do not get involved with those issues. I find the CfD/AfD discussions to be a waste of time as you have people with really biased opinions who are already invested in the outcome one way or the other who drive the discussions. Its not that they are not entitled to their opinions or may not have valid thoughts, they just get too invested in making sure the outcome reflects their worldview that what is best for Wikipedia becomes secondary. Anyway, I personally do not like the idea of splitting out female this or that (I general have not seen ones for men), but if people want to do it, then I think they need to be a sub of the main cat. I understand some people get upset about "same-level" cats, but there is no importance assigned to them. The subcats are simply more refined/focused collections. Writers from New York City are no more or less important than American writers which in turn are no more/less important than those in Category:Writers, just a more focused collection. Same with any race subcat, and same with those related to religion or sexual orientation. Those are no more or less important than the parent cat. Frankly, I think people who even care about such have bigger issues. As a white man, I don't get upset that there are generally not "male" or "white" specific categories for many items, as I don't think those are great ways of splitting up categories, but I think some editors have wanted to highlight their gender or race by making a collection of those notable figures by setting up category schemes to pull them together. It's not that the parent level cat is intended for white male writers or what not, its that someone decided to collect all of the Asian or LGBT or other characteristic. But that's just my thoughts.

So, if you want to address the topic, WP:CFD is the place to take it. Aboutmovies (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Because I don't have a specific category I want to discuss; I was talking about a Wikipedia-wide practice. I thought maybe Wikipedia talk:Categorization but that doesn't seem to have general discussions either.

It's not a matter of the sub-category being more or less important; it's just that the names are removed from the main category and are no longer visible as part of that category - leaving the impression that they don't belong there, and making them that much harder to find. Well, thanks for your thoughts. I'll mull over whether to try to start a discussion somewhere, or whether it would be hopeless. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Well I've tried that here but it doesn't look as if I've done it right. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Also the {prod} tag I put on the Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland article has been removed. What am I doing wrong? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

SonofSetanta, what you are "doing wrong" is using the wrong process. There are three ways to get an article deleted: speedy deletion, proposed deletion (called prod), and nomination for a community discussion at WP:AFD, where the keep-or-delete decision will be made by consensus. Speedy deletion, which you proposed at first, has very strict criteria which you can see here WP:CSD; none of those criteria apply to this article so people removed the speedy tags. Proposed deletion (WP:PROD) is for deletions that will most likely be uncontroversial; the tag is left on the article for a week; if anyone objects they remove the prod tag, showing that it is controversial, and so it cannot be removed by the prod process. That leaves deletion by discussion (WP:AFD), which is your only option here. The AfD process is tricky if you haven't done it before. Here's what I suggest: You write up your reasons why the article should be deleted, and I will post it to AfD for you as a neutral third party, without making a recommendation myself. But here's a caution: you must have valid reasons for wanting it deleted. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. "It's nonsense" or "it's not neutral" or "I don't like it" are not valid reasons. The main reason for an article to be deleted is that the subject is not notable. "Notable" means that the subject has been covered or reported on in a significant way by independent reliable sources. If people in the discussion decide that the subject is notable, they will say "keep" even if the article needs improvement. So if you think you have valid reasons for removing the article, write up a couple of sentences explaining your reasons for why it should be deleted (look at some of the nominations at AfD to see how people do it), and I will post the discussion to AfD for you. If you CAN'T come up with valid, policy-based reasons for deleting the article you might want to drop it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm dropping it. I'll pulling away from all articles related to The Troubles. They're more bother than they're worth. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@SonofSetanta: If that really is your intent, you might want to say so (briefly) at the enforcement page. If you are willing to voluntarily withdraw from this area, that might convince them not to impose a topic ban. (They would always rather have voluntary compliance rather than sanctions.) Be warned, however, that if you then continue to work in this area, after saying you are going to withdraw from it, they will come down on you like a ton of bricks! :-( --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Melanie. I will do so immediately. I very much appreciate the advice. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Sorry about my mistakes on ANI. I'll remember what you said and post in the right place in future. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. We all have a lot to learn here, and learning takes time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of advice. I will heed them. I guess I'm just afraid of getting a ban or block for making a mistake and it's panicking me. You would have had that sorted out for me yesterday if others hadn't intervened. I'll leave off the AE page now and hope I get the right result. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

My talk page

Malanie that appeal template still doesn't seem right. Any chance you might look at it again? I'd be very grateful. SonofSetanta (talk)

@SonofSetanta: All I did was fix the places where the text was running off the end of the page. I'll take another look, but I'm not very familiar with templates. BTW you keep referring to me as an admin, but I am not. You might want to correct that in your appeal. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't look right; it should come out formatted but it reads just like text. I don't know what's up with that or how to fix it. Also, I notice that you are supposed to "copy the text below to the appropriate forum", which can be the talk page of the imposing administrator or the enforcement page where it was imposed, but I think you should not put it there until you have the format figured out first. Maybe you could ask one of the admins who took part in the discussion, how to get it into shape and where to put it. Alternatively, you could quietly submit to the sanction for a month or two (which you were going to do voluntarily anyhow), and then file a request that your sanction be lifted based on your good behavior. Personally I think that would be a wiser course of action, rather than escalating the present confrontation. I think if you can demonstrate over a month or two that you have a) learned some of the things you weren't doing right and b) work collaboratively without confrontation and edit warring, they will modify or lift your sanction. Think of it as a period of probation, where you can prove your ability to be a valuable contributor to the pedia without causing problems. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein has fixed it now Melanie. I'm not familiar with these things either, no more than I am with deletion templates. I wonder will that send a message to anyone? I'm sorry about confusing you with an admin, I thought you were, I will correct that now. As for submitting to the sanctions, no I don't think that would be the right thing to do. My good name is at stake here and while I don't mind being known as a twit because I got something wrong which I'd never attempted before, I do have great objections to being accused of edit warring. Every word I've said all along has been 100% truthful. I am sincere in my belief that I'm not cut out for the subterfuges and gaming which go on at articles related to The Troubles and I doubt I'll ever return in a meaningful way because I'll just get gamed again. It's a shame that I can't edit articles about my own country but that's life. Sometimes one just has to accept one's own limitations. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@SonofSetanta:, if it isn't already clear to you, you have gotten yourself into SERIOUS TROUBLE by making accusations of sockpuppetry against other editors. First you accused Someone not using his real name, and now you have accused two others. You need to immediately withdraw those accusations and apologize (if it isn't already too late), or you are likely to get site-banned so that you can't post on Wikipedia at all. Sockpuppetry is a serious charge, and in this case it doesn't appear to be true. False accusations against other people are taken very, very seriously here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Melanie on this occasion you are incorrect. Of the other two names mentioned it has already been confirmed that Mo ainn used to post under another name and indeed has now linked his account (at last) to confirm that. The third name, Domer48, isn't accused of sock puppetry, he is merely linked to the other two by association in a name that he is known by - no accusation. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, don't say I didn't warn you. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I won't be saying you didn't warn me. I am not making multiple accusations of sockpuppetry. Mo aimn was BigDunc, that is confirmed. Follow the link from his profile which he placed there the other day to confirm it. There is no accusation against Domer48, other than he is normally seen in the company of the other two. I am accusing one editor of hiding his real name, that is all. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And that one accusation is going to get you in deep doo-doo IMO. I thought I might be able to help you figure out how things work here, but I really can't do any more for you. I have advised you; you didn't take my advice. I have warned you; you dismissed my warning. You are on a self-destructive track and I wash my hands of you. --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I am genuinely sorry to read what you've said. After a night sleeping on it I have withdrawn the sockpuppetry allegation. I have taken your advice on every occasion where you have offered it, right up to taking the voluntary withdrawal option and now removing the sockpuppetry allegation. I hope with all my heart that you rescind your decision to wash your hands of me. Your advice is valuable. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, good luck with the appeal - and with your continued contributions to Wikipedia even if your appeal fails, as seems likely. As Sandstein pointed out, the result will be the same whether you voluntarily refrain from Troubles articles or are topic-banned from them. I won't be able to help you with topic-related questions or interpretations of the topic ban, but I can certainly continue to explain to you how Wikipedia works. For starters, it's generally not a good idea to blank or delete things that people have already read and commented on. It would be better to strike through the things you wish to withdraw, with a comment like "withdrawing these comments on further thought" or something like that. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing your position. I note what you've said about strike through but as I've already modified the page it wouldn't be possible to go back now and do that - or would it? One issue I need to point out, and this might help you to understand why I'm so grateful to you and Mabuska, is that: although some protagonists keep pointing out that I've been editing Wikipedia for 5 years - I haven't. I've edited for 12 months over a five year period, even though I've had three identities. Now that I've told you that I think I need to make that clear on the AE case. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Since no-one has yet commented on your blanking of the section, I think you could go back, restore it, and then strike it out with an explanation. As for your being a semi-newbie, that is how I regard you, but I don't think there is much point in adding it to your appeal. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added it already but I'll go back and restore the other section, if I can and strike it through. There is a lot more to all of this than meets the eye you know. If I'd been allowed to make my mistakes without intervention by certain other parties, I wouldn't be in this position now. That's why I've amassed three identities. I was running away from certain editors who refused to allow me to edit on articles concerning my home country. If you feel up to e-mailing me I'll explain a lot more but I don't want to post the whole tirade here. It wouldn't look good. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As always I've fecked it up. Although I've followed the instructions at Wikipedia:User_page_design_center/Style#Strike_Through_Text all the text below my <s> is struck out too. Is NOWIKI the key maybe? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

GOT IT MYSELF! Man do I feel smug - lol. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Good, you figured it out! A suggestion: I use "show preview" a lot to avoid this very type of situation. It may take me three or four rounds of "show preview" before I get it right, but at least I'm not making all my mistakes and revisions on the public page. Now I suggest you add a single sentence (either below the section heading or at the end of the section) saying something like "withdrawing these comments on further reflection" or whatever you feel is appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will take your advice in both cases. If I'd done that preview thing on the Shoot to Kill article I might not be topic banned now. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for M. Brian Maple

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh

So, perhaps I can convince you of this; encyclopedias are not newspapers. I try to edit certain things out of event articles.

1. Newsy language, especially the "according to ..." inline attributions that journalists use. Journalists want to show respect whoever was the first to make a discovery or claim by giving them credit. Encyclopedias, on the other hand, only report the consensus, and Wikipedia has refs to avoid cluttering the text with names of random newspapers or people.
2. Names of spokespersons. Spokespeople, by definition, are not important. They are tasked with informing the media of the consensus opinion of the organization that they speak for.
3. Book plugs. These are obvious, with the name of the book and the author mentioned inline, often attached to a sentence that says nothing, such as, "Mary Munygrubber has published the definitive work on serial killer Shorty Slicer, Slice and Dice, available on Amazon.com'"
4. Quotes. Event articles get put together quickly, often by editors who want to be the article creator or get points for the WikiCup, and to do so they grab giant quotes of material from the news sources and plaster them into an "article". These look horrendous.
5. Primary source material.

In the case of the estimated time of containment, one has to recognize that there is only one source for the date, and it is a primary one--the fire command. All the secondary sources are simply reporting what they fire chief said. If there were independent, truly secondary sources, then Wikipedia could report their consensus. But there aren't any. Abductive (reasoning) 20:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Abductive:mind if I move this to the talk page of the article, so that others can participate? I'd rather reply there, if you agree. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Just think about what I'm trying to say. If you come around to my point of view then remove the estimate from the article. Abductive (reasoning) 20:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

And if I don't? Is there some reason you don't want to conduct this discussion on the article talk page? If not, here's why I disagree: you appear to be invoking "primary source" as a reason to discount this (although WP:Primary source does not forbid primary sources, it says they may be used "with care"). You apparently define a "primary source" as including official information, such as from fire officials about a fire - or presumably from police about a crime, from election officials about an election, etc.. And you seem to be saying we shouldn't use these sources. Am I reading you correctly so far? If so, I certainly disagree: sometimes the official source is the ONLY possible source of information. In this article almost all the information is coming from only one source, the fire officials: the size of the fire, the percent containment, etc. - as well it should. It's not like reporters or other second-party sources can verify or analyze this information; it's just fact, information, most of which DOES come from primary sources (as you define them) even in an encyclopedia. Most of the information in the Rim Fire article is from official sources, and you don't seem to object to that. So where we disagree is whether a predicted containment date is "unencyclopedic speculation" even when it comes from fire officials, or whether a predicted containment date is an expert analysis of the situation which is just as factual and "encyclopedic" as the rest of the information we are reporting from them. Have I summed up our disagreement correctly? If so, let's talk about that rather than about your numbered points above, which are not relevant in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If the fire chief says a fire has burned 40,000 acres, that is a primary source that can be used. If the president of Yahoo says the stock price of Yahoo will be up by 15% by Christmas, that is speculation. Why don't we wait until Sept 20th, and see just how accurate the prediction was? Abductive (reasoning) 05:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A better analogy would be a pilot predicting when the plane will land. He is not guessing or speculating; he is taking all factors into account and making a prediction, which is likely to be fairly accurate barring the unforeseen. A lot of people use the information while the plane is still in the air; as soon as it lands the prediction is forgotten and replaced with the actual landing time. I have worked on a lot of wildfire articles, and it is absolutely routine to include the predicted containment date during this stage of the fire, namely, when the fire is still active but they are starting to get a handle on it. "When is this thing likely to be over?" is a key piece of information right now, and virtually every current news story is including it.[6][7][8] As soon as the fire actually is declared to be contained, we will change this article from an "ongoing" story to a historic one. It will be changed to past tense, and the predicted containment date will be replaced with an "ended" date. --MelanieN (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Beer in San Diego County, California

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Mira Mesa Community Boundaries

I am not certain if I am doing this correctly, but here goes. The edit war to which you referred is real. Basically I have been trying my level best to follow Wikipedia rules by providing factual information, not of my own making, and providing the appropriate citation to the authoritative source of that information. The only authoritative source of community boundaries in San Diego is the City of San Diego General Plan which I have cited on all changes I have made to the Wikipedia Mira Mesa page. Someone keeps changing the map and other information with incorrect information with no citation whatsoever. so while this has become a war, in my humble opinion I have taken the high ground consistently by following the basic rules laid down for providing information to Wikipedia. The others involved are not following Wikipedia rules. Given that, can you think of a proper middle ground for consensus? Truthfully, I request that those with whom I am supposed to form a consensus be required to follow the same rules as everyone else. Perhaps then we could debate issues dealing solely with actual authoritative sources. I did put a comment on the talk page associated with the Mira Mesa Page hoping to engage someone in conversation, but have not seen a reply. Please tell me how I should proceed.

TedBrengel (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Ted Brengel

Article Marked for Deletion (nn), I believe this individual is notable

Hello Melanie: Thank you for reaching out to me regarding the deletion of the Craig M. Spitzer additions on the List of People from Philadelphia, University of Pittsburgh and The Kiski School Pages (he is already listed on their website under Alumni "After Kiski" kiski.org). Here is a brief outline of his bio (not in wiki format):

"Craig M. Spitzer founded his first corporation, Alliance Consulting Group, at the age of 29 in 1994. After five years of rapid expansion, the burgeoning corporation began to earn recognition, and by the year 2000, ACG had drawn accolades from many sources. Inc. 500 ranked ACG at #3 in 1999 and #7 in 2000 on the publication’s list of fastest growing companies; Ernst & Young recognized CEO Spitzer and his ACG partner as their 2000 NYC Entrepreneur of the Year, Consulting and Outsourcing Services; and Spitzer, at age 36, was recognized as one of Philadelphia’s top 3 CEOs under the age of 40.

The following year tragedy struck. On September 11, 2001, Spitzer lost seven friends and colleagues in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, where Alliance Consulting Group housed their NYC offices on the 102nd floor of the North Tower. By that time, the CEO had been approached to sell his company on a number of occasions. Spitzer decided against immediate sale, believing that it was best for Alliance personnel and family and friends of the victims to maintain consistency, and held on to ACG for another year. Ultimately, the CEO sold ACG for $100m to Safeguard Scientific in 2002. Under Spitzer’s management, Alliance Consulting had grown 16,000% from 1994 until its sale in 2002, and provided employment to 700 consultants and staff members in eight states.

In the interim between that sale and the founding of his current corporation, Spitzer took the opportunity to explore many avenues. He produced and co-produced three films including Spike Lee’s She Hate Me and acted in two others including Inside Man with Denzel Washington and Jodie Foster. He also provided founding investment in two successful nightclubs, Marquee of NYC, and Mokai of Miami (2010), and three other corporations, before returning to the consulting arena.

In 2007, Spitzer co-founded a2c IT Consulting, Inc. as the organization’s CEO. His offices in Boston, New York & Philadelphia currently employ over 160 personnel, and since inception the a2c management team has grown revenues to $30m. Craig M. Spitzer is a member of the Kiski School class of ’83, and University of Pittsburgh, ‘87 (BA in Business Economics, President Theta-Chi Fraternity). During his tenure at Kiski, Spitzer was captain of the League Championship Varsity Wrestling Team. Spitzer served on the Board of Trustees at Kiski from 2005-2010, and is currently co-founding a Free Public Library and Art Gallery in Kiski’s hometown of Saltsburg with David Conrad of CBS’ Ghost Whisperer."

This is for his high school Alma mater and doesn't include controversial matter (though I couldn't find anything significant) that will be included on the wiki page, and obviously needs to be re-worked for encyclopedic format. I have a tremendous number of references, citations and cross-references,(including Wikipedia-see alliance consulting and tenants of the twin towers, etc.;Inc., Ernst & Young, Business Week, David Conrad, Arch Diocese of New York, New England Cable News,etc.) and have over a decade of journalism experience so I know how to produce an unbiased piece. He also married Erin Elmore, Esq. (Apprentice Season 3, QVC spokes-model) Can you help me? Although a long time user, I am new to the editing forum at Wikipedia. Thank you again for your consideration. Cynthia Trombley (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Cynthia, and thanks for your note. You have the wrong person - it was User:Ohnoitsjamie who deleted your entry from the page, not me. But I am pretty good at helping people write articles if the subject is notable. If you would like to take a stab at making a real Wikipedia article, I will be glad to take a look and advise you. The best place to do do that is your sandbox, which is like your own personal scratch pad where you can get your article ready before putting it into Wikipedia mainspace. You can create your sandbox by clicking on the word "sandbox" at the top of the page while you are logged in. It will give you a private space where you can try to put together an article. No matter how well you write (and obviously, you should leave out the drama like "tragedy struck," as well as the puffery like "burgeoning" "accolades" etc.), the article will not qualify if he doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which requires significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Business Week would qualify; most of the others you mention would not, and Wikipedia can never be used as a source. Let me know when you have something to look at and I'll advise. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Cynthia, please also be mindful of WP:PAID. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jamie and Melanie: Thank you- I have read the page and I do understand that this type of contribution is discouraged and appreciate your advice. Please understand I am a professional journalist and have made Mr. Spitzer fully aware that I will include everything I find- not just positive press- because of the nature of Wikipedia. I also informed him that the page is an open forum and that anyone will be able to edit and add controversial material with the approval of the forum and he agreed to these parameters. I also have articles from BBC and the New York Post, Atlantic City Press, the Pittsburgh Tribune, and CRN (an IT trade publication)among others. Unfortunately I am not in the financial position to spend the amount of time a project like this entails on a volunteer basis, but I do believe he qualifies as notable on his own merits. I do understand the difference between objective reporting and pr pieces (as above- this is closer to a PR piece). I'm particularly uncertain why he was removed from the Kiski school list of notables as he is featured on their own website. If he is still deemed nn can you please let me know what would define parameters for a stub article? When I was asked to do this I looked at individuals such as Philadelphia's Randall Pinkett, Apprentice winner, U Pitt's, Motorcyclist Erick Buell, consultant and author Jaddish Sheth, retired President of Ansys John Swanson, and author Dennis Unkovic (and the Kiski school itself which deemed Spitzer notable). All of these individuals are on their respective lists and have articles on Wikipedia, and I can't see that any have more significant references than Mr. Spitzer. Can you clarify? Thank you again for your consideration.Cynthia Trombley (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Cynthia, as I said above, what makes a person notable is significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Please read the link. It's important that the coverage be SIGNIFICANT (not just a mention or a quote), INDEPENDENT (the school he went to does not qualify), and RELIABLE (such as some of the newspapers you cited). Please also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the fact that other people have pages has no bearing on whether he is notable. Give us something to look at and we can tell you if he qualifies; you can't really expect us to do your research for you in order to answer your questions. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Melanie: Sorry if I gave the impression I was asking you to do research. As I said I am new to this forum. I had not seen the other stuff exists page before, and had looked at peers to see if Spitzer's creds were similar, thinking that if they had passed muster that his credentials would be sufficient. I apologize. I will be happy to show you what I have when I wrap up my research. If I place the article in my sandbox, can you see it or does it actually have to be published for you to see it? I do appreciate your assistance.Cynthia Trombley (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be able to see it. Just post a link. (Copy the title and place it between double brackets.) MelanieN (talk),

Hello Melanie: I hope this finds you well. Per our earlier "talk" I am posting this link in the hopes that you will preview it before I try to publish. I believe ohnoitsjamie may have marked it afd, but he didn't have any of the references at the time. Please let me know your thoughts and thank you for your work on Wikipedia. User:Cynthia Trombley/sandboxCynthia Trombley (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Jeanne Lenhart page

Thank you for your note about a new page (Jeanne Lenhart). That was nice of you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

== No urgency ==

I'm considering the future of User:M. Robyn Fils Tunechi. If you have a moment of boredom, could you have a look at it? I'm thinking of an MfD on it, but would like another opinion. Peridon (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's been deleted by Anna F and the user blocked by Drmies. It may come back from a sock, though. Peridon (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you preview my article?

Hi Melanie: I was wondering if you might be able to preview my article for me. We "spoke" a while ago and because I am new to this you had said you might have a moment to look at it. It is in my sandbox. Here is the link I pasted the link above. User:Cynthia Trombley/sandbox. I did have one question regarding references. I had copy/pasted my refs from my original word doc so I could just paste them into the cite templates and inserted the reflist template, but now I can't seem to delete all the old links without losing the desired reference links. Thanks for your consideration- Cynthia Trombley (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Cynthia! I'm traveling right now and can't help with your references. But if you don't mind waiting a week or so I'll take a look when I can. Meanwhile, as long as the article is in your sandbox it is in no danger. MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie:

I look forward to you input. Have a good trip!Cynthia Trombley (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Indented line Hi again Melanie: Hope you had a nice trip. I am sure you are busy, but was wondering if you might have a minute to preview my article? The link is pasted above. Thanks very much.Cynthia Trombley (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Indented line

Hi, Cynthia, I'm back. Sorry for the delay. I took a look at your article. You have worked hard on it and you have listed a lot of reference citations, but there is a big problem: I don't think Mr. Spitzer qualifies for an article here. You have given 60-some reference citations (not 60 different sources, because there is duplication), but almost none of them are from independent reliable sources as required for notability. And the ones that are from independent reliable sources are not significantly about HIM; they are mostly stories in connection with 9/11. Sources like executive profiles at Business Week and Zoom are not considered independent or reliable, because the information is supplied by the individual. What's needed is significant coverage by independent sources such as major newspapers; that's how Wikipedia determines if a person is notable enough for an article in an international encyclopedia. I did a search myself, to see if there was additional coverage that could be added; I searched Google News Archive [9] [10] but I found nothing helpful. We could fix the reference listings but I doubt if it would be worthwhile, because I don't think this article would last very long if it was moved into mainspace. I'm just one person - not even an administrator, just an experienced editor here - but my advice is not to pursue creating a Wikipedia article about Mr. Spitzer. Instead of a whole article about him, you could try adding a little more information about him to the article Alliance Global Services, but frankly I don't think that article would survive a deletion discussion either. Sorry, but you asked for my opinion and I know you wanted an honest evaluation.--MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Indented lineThanks for reviewing Melanie- I do appreciate your time.Cynthia Trombley (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

question regarding John K Frost article

MelanieN,

This was my father, thank you for writing a piece on him. Out of curiosity, why did you write it? Did you know him or work with him?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncmd2b (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page. MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, I edited the article, changing the number of children to 7. As I am number 7, I didn't want to be left out! ;-) Your page says you grew up in Oakland. Small world, as my mother was born and raised in Oakland, and my father grew up in Alameda. Thank you for the article.

DYK for Marcus Stern (journalist)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your advice, I will keep that in mind. As one of many people who love San Diego, I would especially give thanks to your effort for articles and information about San Diego in Wikipedia. Take care!--Db9023 (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow

Sorry for the late response...I just got back from Singapore and wasn't spending much time editing while I was there. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Hi, Melanie. I noticed that you reverted a recent edit I made, but I don't follow what your reasoning for it was. So before I re-add the information, I'd just like to clarify what your meant. You wrote that the change involved "addition of TMI" and that "generally we prefer to summarize someone's comments rather than quote them at length". However, my edit did not add any quotations. Dezastru (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Dezastru; I'm afraid I was less than clear. I was referring to your expansion of Paul's response into a whole second paragraph, and the addition of what amounted to rebuttals to his comments - like the fact that he didn't cite Wikipedia, and Maddow's snark about him not understanding what plagiarism is. (She was right, but it's still a snark and doesn't belong here.) IMO the current, fairly compact paragraph is enough for now; it covers the controversy without escalating it beyond what it deserves. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to leaving out Maddow's question as to whether Paul understands what plagiarism is (although I think that is a legitimate question). I also don't object to putting everything into a single paragraph, although I think it reads better as two paragraphs. I do, however, disagree with not mentioning that Paul did not respond to the charges of not having cited Wikipedia as the source of text that was used almost verbatim in his speeches, which is what multiple commentators have said is at the heart of the matter. No one ever said Paul did not give proper credit to the filmmakers. Dezastru (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can say that briefly and cited to a RS, I would be OK with it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that you did add it (sorry for slow response, I was AFC) with an abundance of sources. (Maybe four sources is almost too many; "The Hill" seems redundant and could go.) Now to decide where to put the information.... see you at the talk page! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Kurtisawesome01 has given you some kittens! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companions forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some kittens, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kittens}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Harry Greene

Hi,

I noticed that you added material to the Harry S. N. Greene bio. I knew him many years ago, spun in his chair in his office at Yale as a toddler. I wonder if you have any personal connection with him?

Jrm2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm2007 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jrm2007, and thanks for the note! No, I did not know Dr. Greene. A couple of years ago there was a proposal to delete his article, so I expanded it and added references so that the article would be kept. I was frustrated that I could not find more information, like where he went to school or medical school, or where he grew up. Do you have access to any of that information, or do you know where I could find it? He sounds like a truly memorable character! --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I'm glad you called this article to my attention! I was able to find and add some missing information, and to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia format in ways I did not know how to do three years ago. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I met him as a little kid I of course knew very little about him -- he was my dad's boss. Some of his former students and colleagues are no doubt still around if getting along in years and perhaps they could add more -- maybe they already have.--Jrm2007 (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA

You recently contributed to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Commas in metro areas. Following a recent related RFC on the wording used at MOS:COMMA in relation to geographic names, a new wording has gathered some support and I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion of the proposal, which may interest you. —sroc 💬 08:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the support on my talk page! For further discussion press three. Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 18:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Al (Allen) Schwartz

An IP claiming to be the article subject has posted at the help desk. Perhaps you could respond there [11]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MelanieN. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PernixData.
Message added 02:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Henry T. Lynch

Hello! Your submission of Henry T. Lynch at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being so kind

Hello MelanieN, I want you to know that I sincerely appreciate the kind sentiments you posted regarding my editorial discretion which prompted the requested move of wp:notnow. It is always a joy for me seeing users like you who employ empathy aside their policy based comments. It is because of people like you that I remain with this site, and I will esteem our introduction in perpetuity; remembering your fine example. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; you made my day! --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Henry T. Lynch

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Aldred Scott Warthin

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas. Herostratus (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year MelanieN!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello MelanieN: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.