User talk:MelanieN/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Thank you

Thank you for protecting Amrita Sher-Gil. It with getting very difficult to keep up with the various attacks, even though several of us were reverting. LynwoodF (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@LynwoodF: You're welcome. I wonder why that article suddenly became such a target? It had been fairly quiet for years. Has she been in the news or something, to attract such a lot of attention all of a sudden? --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I really don't know why, but at first I was not surprised. Then I realized that it was not Frida Kahlo, whose article attracts a lot of vandalism, but not as intense as this was. I did wonder whether it had anything to do with Amrita's nickname, "India's Frida Kahlo". There seems to be an unpleasant contempt for Frida in certain quarters, and also for another painter, Paul Nash, who is close to my heart, as my parents are buried a few yards from his grave. LynwoodF (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That could be it. I notice that there is a "see also" link to Sher-Gill from the Kahlo page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Sandy Cornish

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Reaction to a page protection

Thanks for keeping out Wolfgang Beltracchi from the Art Forgery Page

Great Job !!

and with the new . (Protected "Art forgery": link, o my goodness, this is soooo good to keep out

Wolfgang Beltracchi

and any possible link to

Art Forgery

and i cant forget

John Myatt, (born 1945), is a British artist and was convicted of Art forgery who, with John Drewe, perpetrated what has been described as "the biggest art fraud of the 20th century".

Early life

The son of a farmer, Myatt attended art school and discovered a talent for mimicking other artists' styles but at first only painted for amusement and for friends. He worked as a songwriter for a time and claims authorship of the song "Silly Games", a UK no. 2 hit for Janet Kay in 1979, although this is attributed by Kay to producer Dennis Bovell and credited to Diana Bovell. He later worked as a teacher in Staffordshire.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.107.54.153 (talk • contribs)

Reply

Thanks for your note, which I have formatted for clarity. I assume your point here is to express frustration about the semi-protection of Art forgery, which prevents you from adding the above information. I would just note that 1) the above material was previously added to the article multiple times by various sockpuppets of User:David Adam Kess, and was immediately deleted, and 2) this kind of extended information does not seem to fit within the format of that article. There is a list of known art forgers (including Myatt) at the bottom of the page, but no detail is given about them at the Art forgery page; detail is at the Wikipedia page John Myatt. Addition and re-addition of this inappropriate material was the major reason for protecting the article, so you can blame yourself (assuming you are another sockpuppet) for the protection. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring Chinese IP is back.

The short page protects didn't have much effect, and he's aggressively edit warring at And Then There Were None (TV series). Would you at least page protect it, and preferably levy a block for 3RR? DrmargiDrmargi (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I did nothing but trying to improve the article, and it's you who's been aggressively causing edit war due to a grudge caused by opinion difference at every article i'm trying to improve. I suggest you to stop your irrational behaviour and try to be reasonable as hard as it might be for you. ---114.64.251.196 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if your grudge against people who hold a view that is different to yours is that strong, then you should just find some other ways to quench your rage instead of following and edit warring at almost every article like a sniffing dog, Lord pardon my speech.---114.64.251.196 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And then, of course, there's the battleground mentality and personal attacks. --Drmargi (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up: he's back again, now on .194, and has gone right back to some of the same articles and begun reverting. Mostly minor stuff so far. --Drmargi (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmargi is causing edit war

The wiki account Drmargi has been aggressively causing edit war due to a grudge caused by opinion difference at almost every article i'm trying to improve. Would you please find some way to deal with him such as blocking him? Thanks. --114.64.251.196 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply

I am traveling and don't have access to my admin tools. So I can't do any page protection right now. If you feel that escalation to blocks is warranted I suggest you take it to one of the WP notice boards. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No sweat. He hit 10RR, and after a quick trip to AN3, another admin levied a week's vacation. You enjoys your travels!! --Drmargi (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Just a quick weekend trip, back already. TEN reverts? Amazing. I tried an educational approach: brief protection, counseling, gentle warnings. Sometimes that's effective. Not this time, evidently. :/ --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, he's guided by too much anger, and too great a need to not only be right, but to win. It seems to be an epidemic these days. Go take a look at the treasure on my talk page, from another editor. --Drmargi (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

My sympathies. It's amazing how vitriolic people can get over a simple disagreement. As a Wikifriend of mine likes to say to such people: take a look at the news, or go visit a homeless shelter or a cancer clinic - then maybe you'll be able to put this kind of thing in perspective. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The frustrating part is that it has to stay put until Twitter acts on my complaint, then I'll request it be rev del'd. But I can see how some editors want to threaten legal action. It's a legal grey area. Sigh... --Drmargi (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It could be deleted now, and revdel'd later. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right of course, but I hate to move it now I've filed a complaint with Twitter. Let's see what they do on Monday, then I'll check in with you. Thanks for the support. I'm so weary of people assuming I'm a man. --Drmargi (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I hear you. What kind of name do they think "Margi" is? Maybe they only see the "Dr" part - there is unfortunately a sizable percentage of the country that still assumes all doctors are men (last time I looked it was about one-third women). Then of course there is the general assumption at Wikipedia that all editors are male, so that they don't even look at our name, much less our user page. Not much we can do about this, except shake our heads. "We've come a long way, baby" - but we still have a long way to go. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(stalker) Don't forget that while the original Amalthea was either a nymph or a (nanny) goat belonging to a nymph, the Wikipedian admin Amalthea is male... Anyway, if something is deleted, it doesn't need revdel. It might need re-creation and oversight if anything should be really buried, as admins can see revdelled and deleted things, but not oversighted things. I've not come across a case where I've requested re-creation for oversight (in fact, I've only just thought of it...), but if there is any possibility that another admin might restore a deleted article that contains something really bad, it might be an idea. Peridon (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Another DYK?

What do you make of this? Could you do a bit of copyediting? We can make this a DYK, you see that the subject is interesting. :p Jim Carter 12:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but I think I'll pass on this one; I have several other projects I'm working on. At first I wondered if this subject even had enough coverage for an article - after all it is brand new, patents not yet issued, not yet on the market except in a couple of test locations. But I did find additional coverage: [1] [2] [3] One suggestion: the article shouldn't be called Archelis; that's just one of several such products on the market. The Japanese company Nitto (which does not have a Wikipedia article) makes Archelis; the Swiss company Noonee (also no article) makes the Chairless Chair. It looks as of the generic name per sources is "wearable chair" so maybe that should be the article name. Sorry I can't help more. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to reach out and let you know that your willingness to explain the Wikipedia policies related to the issues of the Hammerschlagen article did not go unnoticed. Your providing examples, using different language than what is used in the policies, and stating what verbiage I was using that causes angst in others were communications that others did not provided to me: your words were the difference between being left behind in the dark and understanding what constitutes acceptability. Though the circumstances under which we met were a little awkward, I do greatly appreciate having met you. Thank you. Jim at WRB (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

What a nice note! You're welcome, User:Jim at WRB. I know your Wikipedia experiences were frustrating and I'm glad you have no hard feelings. Since you felt that the article here was causing problems for your company, I suspect you'll find you are better off without it. I hope your company thrives! --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, this time for explaining how to get a hold of a specific user on Wikipedia. As you may know, I'm not really all that good with using Wikipedia but am trying to learn. It's kind of fun wandering around this big web-collaboration. I also have a couple of questions on a draft of mine (if you're up for answering those and helping me better understand the verifiability and notability wiki-policies). Jim at WRB (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

2014 Isla Vista killings

I believe you protecting the article was groundless, since there was no vandalism going on in the article recently. This is not vandalism: [4][5]. --87.110.93.102 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your note. I agree, those are good-faith edits, not vandalism. Since they have been disputed, they should be discussed at the talk page (not re-added via an edit war), and I see that the IP account involved has already initiated a discussion there. That's good. If consensus is reached to add that information, any auto-confirmed user can do so.
The reason I semi-protected the article - and for 3 months - is that I looked at the longer-term recent history of the article. It has been repeatedly subjected to vandalism like this[6] and this[7] and particularly this[8][9]. Also because the article had needed semi-protection six times previously.
I realize that semi-protection places a burden on responsible unregistered users. That's unfortunate, and that's why we are normally very conservative in using it. While it is in place, unregistered users have the option of using the {{edit semi-protected}} template on the talk page, or of registering and auto-confirming an account. Or, of course, they can request a different administrator to shorten or lift the protection. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Twice protection

Thank you for protecting the Twice (band) page. However, someone just removed the protecting, saying that the page is not protected. Am I allowed to add it back? The page really needs the protection... Katzenlibrary (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Katzenlibrary. I only protected the article for three days, because the vandalism was very recent and short-term. The protection has now expired. Let's wait and see if it is needed again. I see a couple of IP edits since the protection expired, but they appear to be constructive. And that's one reason Wikipedia is very conservative about protection - so as not to block editing from responsible IPs. Let me know if the vandalism resumes. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking back I think I thought the tag said it was in place until February of next year, so that's on me! If the vandalism resumes, I will let you know. It's been a pretty consistent problem, but hopefully it will subside. Thanks! Katzenlibrary (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Staten Island boat graveyard

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

jid ali

The page was reverted inappropriately and I was given warning by correcting certain details that connote to the market area being a high class costal area while it is far from the sea and made of shanty homes. Bh.alnasser (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bh.alnasser: You have been edit warring and repeatedly inserting your own opinion, which is not supported by the map in the article or by sources like this one. You need to either stop this, or come up with some sources that support your opinion. (Might there be more than one village or neighborhood with this name, and that is why your description is so different from the description in the article?) --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

deletion of a contestation of speedy deletion

You deleted the talk page of the speedy deleted "lambda the ultimate" article. Did you see I put a message contesting the speedy deletion ? Should this be discussed before the re-deletion ? TomT0m (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I did see that, TomT0m, but that is the wrong place for a protest once the article has already been deleted. Here's what you need to do: First, be sure that you are familiar with the criteria for having an article here; the general rule is at WP:GNG and the rule specifically for web content is at Wikipedia:Notability (web). Compare those requirements with the Lambda the Ultimate article, which had no independent sourcing at all. If after reading this material you still feel the article should be restored, or if you think you can improve it to meet the criteria, you should take your request/explanation to the talk page of the administrator who deleted the article; that would be User talk:Ritchie333. He can restore the article, or WP:Userfy it to you as a draft for you to make improvements, or he can counsel you about why the subject is not likely to qualify for an article. If he chooses not to restore or userfy the article, or if he doesn't respond (but give him some time, we are not all in the same time zone), then you can take your request to Wikipedia:Deletion review. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I clicked on the link that is proposed in the message announcing the deletion. Reading just a few links about what was required for a contestation it was already too late. Said differently, in a so short notice that message is useless or the procedure is totally dysfunctional, only a really hard core wikipedian can answer in less than 10 minutes. This is kind of weird because the contestation of a speedy deletion is far more easy than to ask for a page restauration. Plus I find totally rude to have a message deleted without a single explanation. Not that I so much care about the article, although I feel that there is room for it in here, but I feel a little bit like in Brazil in here ;) TomT0m (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you're right - four minutes between the tag and the deletion is pretty tight and may set some kind of record! I'm sorry the procedure worked so poorly for you. Please don't take it personally. Now that we are where we are, is there something you would like me to do? I can copy your contestation over to Ritchie's page, if you would like (so that you don't have to reconstruct it). --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi TomT0m. The link you wanted to use is Brazil (1985 film). I wish I could delete the shortened "happy ending" version from my memory - heehee. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 19:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Bow Group page - protection

Dear MelanieN,

Thank you for having taken action to lock the Bow Group Wikipedia Page. As you know, it has recently been the subject of an editing war by persons intent on presenting false information about the Group. We have had e-mail correspondence with Sam Tarling regarding this matter.

However, your lock has left the Group's Page with the very same erroneous and malicious information which we have been attempting to change. This includes an article from 2014 being used to support a story in 2015 an underhand attempt to damage the reputation of our Chairman.

On behalf of the Bow Group, I would like to kindly request that you revert the Page to my "StrangeFacts"' last edit, as this contains accurate information which has actually occurred, such as the passing of our Senior Patron Lord Geoffrey Howe, as well as our recent policy contributions.

I had made two prior accounts to correct these changes (Secretary of the Bow Group & BlueBulldog45), however, these accounts were both blocked, hence the need to make this "StrangeFacts" third account. I assume that the same persons with a deliberate agenda against the Group were responsible for this; hence the apparent "sock puppetry" for edits.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely, Office Manager, The Bow Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrangeFacts (talk • contribs) 10:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This is related to the Connerdn SPI, which I pinged you about. GAB^Hello! 14:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@StrangeFacts: Since you admit to being a sockpuppet, I am not inclined to do as you ask. Continued sockpuppetry is not likely to achieve what you want. Plus, you have a conflict of interest and should not normally be editing the article in any case. However, if you weren't a sockpuppet, and if you feel your proposed edits have merit, you could post on the article's talk page, using the {{edit semi-protected}} tag and asking for someone to add the information to the article.There's a chance someone might be willing to add the factual information (change in key people? death of chair senior patron?) if it is sourced to a reference. Wikipedia does not like non-neutral language like "smear campaign", so I think you can forget about adding that stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The sockpuppets were correct in that the Telegraph reference was given as the wrong year. However, I've removed the sentence containing this reference, as I consider that the article should stick to matters relating to the Bow Group as a group, not to the chairman personally. I've restored some of the other factual matter, but yes the Bow Group personnel should confine themselves to the talk page and not use any further accounts: Noyster (talk), 19:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Noyster, that was well done. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/AWK Solutions

you have mentioned "The result was delete. The "keep" arguments by the Special Purpose Accounts are not convincing. MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)". For the sake of argument let me agree, that all references posted in the article are not notable. Now please tell me 1 thing ? How come the article Pollard's Chicken exists in Wikipedia without any issue. Dont you think you need to revisit your criteria for deletion ? I can provide you many more examples like this in wikipedia. Or is it just a selective decision based on the editor's whimsy and monopoly ? At least please be honest. No diplomacy please.Startupindia (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, User:Startupindia. I see that Pollard's Chicken has now been proposed for deletion. There are a lot of articles here that shouldn't be here, and when we find them we delete them. But since there are 5 million articles here, we don't always find them. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your response, my freind. I saw this coming from your end. Look into the version history of Pollard's Chicken, the page was created on 5th April 2011 and the deletion status was tagged just 2 days a ago (After someone raised the point in the AFD AWK Solutions page). Surprised that a article like this stayed for 5 years, before it gets noticed (after giving the name as reference).

Few more embarrassing examples for you. Big Chicken, Bush's Chicken, Chicken Express, The Chicken Rice Shop. Let me know if you need more examples. Putting this articles for deletion (after someone raises a point like me), is not justice done. This articles are present in wiki, since long 6 to 7 years back and the purpose for this articles ( to have a wiki presence ) has been achieved long back.

in the deletion page, someone highlighted few sentences that were sounding very promotional in nature. So accordingly, I was on the process for getting those sentences removed and rectify it accordingly. But you didnt even give the chance for this, as you deleted it on 25th Feb. Please dont misunderstand me, I am not blaming you personally, as wouldn't have known, what i was planing to do.

Do you still think, that AWK Solutions is not fit for wikipedia ????? Over to you !!! Startupindia (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Startupindia, if you are trying to get the article restored, you are going about it all wrong. "Well, look, all these other articles are crap too!" is a classic example of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - usually abbreviated as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It may result in the other articles getting deleted (I'll take a look at them, if someone hasn't beat me to it). But getting other, equally bad or worse articles deleted does nothing to bring your article back. You could point out bad articles from now till Christmas, and it wouldn't do a thing to restore your article. Maybe what you are actually trying to say, is that you would like a chance to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia's standards; is that right? Let's talk about that. Wikipedia's standards for a company to have an article here are defined, very clearly, at WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The reason for deleting this article, as expressed at the discussion, was that the company does not meet those standards. People said "References are mostly self-published or press releases and do not establish notability." "I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources (in a Google search). Google results are mostly unrelated or social media. The article is no help, as it's just press releases." "Your article has 12 references -- 2 from AWK's home page, 4 from social media, 3 press releases (published on sites that exist solely for the publication press releases), a directory entry, and two that don't mention AWK at all. None are from indendent, reputable sources." "This is obviously self-promotional and non-notable, all of the "news" sources are links to the same press release from the company." "The sources cited here are all press releases, from what I can tell, and eight of them have almost exactly the same title, meaning that if they aren't press releases, they are re-hashed press releases. The text is highly promotional, with statements like: "their solutions and development are perhaps the best in the segment" "delivered some of the best solutions in this new dimensional segment". I honestly think the article would be speedy deleted as PROMO." These quotes tells you, very clearly, what you would have to fix to make the article acceptable: add sources that provide significant coverage from independent reliable sources, get rid of the press releases (because they are not independent sources), and get rid of the promotional language. Do you actually have any such sources? Do you think, if given the chance, you could improve the article sufficiently to demonstrate that AWK Solutions meets those criteria? --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile I took a quick look at the restaurants you tagged here.

Regarding Big Chicken: just now in a search I found multiple sources and I will add them. The fact that it has multiple independent reliable sources means that it deserves an article, even if the sources hadn't yet been added to the article. Thanks for calling this article to my attention; it has been tagged as needing better sources since 2009!

Bush's Chicken has two independent references, and in a search I found a couple more. But they are minimal and it should probably go. Things like youtube, yelp, Facebook, etc. do not count toward notability.

Chicken Express - same as above.

The Chicken Rice Shop gets a lot of news coverage [10]; I'll have to check further to see if the coverage is significant.

All four of them have at least some independent sources - unlike AWK. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation. If that is the case, as you have explained, please guide me so that i can meet the wiki guidelines.Startupindia (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought you'd never ask. 0;-D What I can do, is to recreate the article as a draft, in your private userspace rather than the encyclopedia. That's called userfication. There you can work on it: add independent sources if you can find them, and delete the promotionalism. Since the article will be in your private space, it will not get deleted while you work on it. When you think you have improved it enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP, ask me or any other administrator to take a look at it. If we think it is improved enough, we will tell you how to move it into the main encyclopedia. Warning: If you try to move it into the encyclopedia WITHOUT improving it significantly, it will probably get speedy-deleted under the guideline known as WP:G4 - recreating an article that was deleted by an AfD discussion. Give me a minute to set this up. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is awkward: turns out you already have a version of it in your userspace. Do you want to keep that version, or have me restore the deleted article? --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll let you go ahead with the one you have. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support. In fact I have created the article in my user-space yesterday. I will modify the article accordingly and updated all possible references. Once i am done, I would like to disturb you for its review and no one else, since i am having a discussion with you and because of your supportive attitude..

Sometimes I feel that Wikipedia has is more strict than the US NAVY SEALS :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startupindia (talk • contribs) 08:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure,, Startupindia, I'll be glad to take a look at your improved article and advise. Let me know when you think it might be ready. It does seem like Wikipedia has a lot of rules, but it has to. That's the only way to maintain its reputation as a valuable and accurate resource. --MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

"I would never want to belong to any club that would accept people like me as a member."

Thanks, MelanieN, for such a lovely surprise. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Martin; very well deserved. You probably shouldn't belong to any club that would have ME as a member, either. (Actually I saw this note from you, not knowing the award had been given, and I thought "uh oh, what did I do now???") --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"A likely story — and probably true." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

My favorite: "The other day I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas, I'll never know." --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25