User talk:MelanieN/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Canstar Article Recreation

Hi Melanie. I'm just wanting to get an article "un-deleted" if possible that was recently posted for Canstar. At the time the article had too many primary references, and understandably you were having difficulty establishing notability. I've since found a number of "Notable Award Winners" (which are all easily recognisable companies using Canstar's branding as part of their marketing) as well as high profile news sources which Canstar has been invited to contribute commentary to as they are considered a notable, impartial authority by Australian consumers. I've added to [[1]] the details to that effect. Essentially it reads as the following: Canstar Canstar is a ratings company based in Brisbane, Australia. They provide ratings for Australian and New Zealand brands on a range of financial products and services under the Canstar Gold brand, and for consumer products and services under the Canstar Blue brand. They have provided awards which are frequently leveraged as part of marketing material produced by Australia's and New Zealand's largest companies such as Commonwealth Bank [2], Pirelli [3], Daikin [4], Budget Rent A Car [5] and Suzuki [6] as a few examples. Their impartial and fact-based ratings system means they are routinely quoted as an authority on finance and consumer brand matters by Australia'a largest publications such as News.com.au [7],[8],[9] and Herald Sun [10]. The primary competitor for Canstar Gold is Comparethemarket.com with Choice (Australian consumer organisation) the major competitor for Canstar Blue. Is their any chance you might be able to help me re-add this article? Brendan.lidster (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Brendan, and thanks for your note. I am away from my computer right now and not able to look into this. I'll check it out when I get back - unless someone else does it for me! Sorry for the delay. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Brendan.lidster: Sorry for the delay. I have now been able to take a look at your article. It was deleted because a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canstar decided the company did not meet the requirement of WP:CORP, which requires that the corporation has been written about significantly by outside sources. The new sources you have provided are not primary sources, so that's an improvement - but they don't seem to provide "significant coverage" either. I am not hopeful that this company will ever meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion here. I will put the old article into your userspace where you can work on it, but be warned: if your new version isn't SUBSTANTIALLY different from the previous article, it will get speedily deleted per WP:G4. And even if it is substantially different, it could still be deleted for not meeting WP:CORP. Some suggestions: say Canstar, not CANSTAR. The first sentence should describe what the subject is, for example "Canstar is a (nationality) (type of company)." Take a look at some existing articles about similar companies and see how they are formatted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You can find the restored article in your private space at User:Brendan.lidster/Canstar. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, MelanieN. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. North America1000 09:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Resurrection of Southern California Task Force

After moving from Los Angeles County to Kern County to San Luis Obispo County, I am finally realizing that there is life in California outside of L.A. and San Francisco, where I lived and grew up. Oh, I have also lived in San Diego, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Yolo and Sacramento counties, and I earned my undergraduate degree in Riverside County. I am trying to breathe life into the Southern California Task Force, and I hope you will join me. Could you visit our list of participants at the other end of this link and update your description of what you are interested in doing for us, assuming that you still want to be in the mix, that is.

In recompense, I will buy you a drink during the Wikipedia Welcome Week I am planning for Morro Bay on the Central Coast in July. Yours sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

iNetClean

Request to undelete INetClean page.

Its a place holder for products related to porn filtering. It was also intended to be company information page.

This page represents a serious and innovative work. As observed on wikipedia, articles improve over time, not in a week. But this page got deleted within 1-2 weeks.

If "https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Net_Nanny" can be a page of its own, why not iNetClean ?

regards, Suresh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshkrshukla (talk • contribs) 07:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sureshkrshukla: Thanks for your note. The article was deleted because a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INetClean concluded that the company does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article. The criteria can be found at WP:CORP. The company must have gotten significant coverage from independent reliable sources. No such coverage was found for iNetClean. You asked why Net Nanny has an article; it's because Net Nanny has been written about by independent sources like PC Magazine. If you can show similar significant coverage about iNetClean from independent reliable sources, it might be worth while to try to recreate it. But if such sources don't exist, it would only get deleted again. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answer. I will come back in future after criteria is met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshkrshukla (talk • contribs) 05:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

RfA

I don't think I've seen a candidate supported by Andrew D, Carrite, Kraxler, and Eric Corbett before. Worries me a bit... Peridon (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this may be a first for Andrew, all right; he has been accused of always opposing every nomination. Not to worry. Ritchie has collaborated with a lot of people, and IMO these are the "content contributors" rallying round. Personally my thought was: I don't think I have ever seen such a distinguished panel of nominators, at least not recently. Kudpung, and Yunshui, and Drmies - how do you do that? --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Law Question

Dear MelanieN, I hope you have time for a law question regarding context on a Wikipedia article. I know we are not close friends, and had disputes in the past, but I hope we can build a friendship soon. I have a question regarding the article Pine Eagle Charter School. I recently expanded the "Shooting" section, about the surprise shooting drill. A teacher from the school district opened a federal case about it, saying it caused her emotional distress and Posttraumatic stress disorder. However, I wrote in the article which the Oregonian said that she accused the defendants of civil assault, emotional distress, false imprisonment, and depriving her of liberty without due process. I wanted to link emotional distress with the Wikipedia article about emotional distress, however it lead to a distribution page about two subjects: Intentional infliction of emotional distress and Negligent infliction of emotional distress, both about emotional distress in a court of law. I am not sure which one would apply to the situation of McLean opening a federal lawsuit against school officials for the shooting drill. I did not know who to ask, but I thought you might know. If you don't know that's fine. I was going to ask Valfontis, since she mentioned she knew about law, but she does not want me talking to her, since I was uncivil to her a few months back, which I regret. I do want to be friends with Valfontis and repair our Wikipedia friendship. You see, I have changed a lot since I had the conversation with you, Valfontis, and Acroterion in February and March. I am doing many projects now, and created WikiProject United States Constitution, and am a pending-changes review and rollbacker. I think I should not be getting off topic to much, but maybe you might help me with my question. Cheers! P.S: Please reply with {{u|CookieMonster755}} so I can be notified of your reply. Cheers again CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

CookieMonster755, Thanks for your note, and of course you are welcome to consult me about stuff any time. I'm glad to see the progress you have made; you are becoming a valuable contributor here. That's an interesting case! I made a few minor edits to the article. I would assume that she is accusing them of "negligent" rather than "intentional" infliction of distress. I hope you will follow the case and keep the article up to date. I also wish you could find a little more information about the school itself and add it to the article, so that the shooting drill doesn't unduly dominate the article. BTW I think an "active shooting drill" is the stupidest idea I ever heard of. If anyone on the faculty had been armed, or had grabbed for an impromptu weapon such as a club, people could have been hurt or killed. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply Ms MelanieN. I will be following the case and keeping the article up to date. I do agree with you, the Shooting drill section makes the article seemed unbalanced. I will try to find more information about the school, but details can be hard to find, especially for a rural school like this. I also agree with you on your personal opinion. I hope the teacher wins the lawsuit, because that was just dumb of the school administrators to do such a thing. You're right, the pretend "shooter" could have been actually killed if one of the teachers had a gun on them. Also, since this school is not that notable (except only for the shooting drill), than what other information should I add? It does give some information about the schools academics. I will refer to other school Wikipedia articles to see what they have to say. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN - I added a new section about misconduct against a teacher named Chris deCastro. Could you please read it and make sure its suitable and not unduly. Thanks. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The paragraph is sourced and well written, but I really think it is not suitable. It's a personnel matter, with no crime involved, of local interest only, reported in one hyper-local source. In other words it's not really a notable incident or a notable person, and including it makes me uncomfortable, considering Wikipedia's policy about biographies of living persons. Thanks for trying to expand the article, but I was really hoping for more about the school itself. I realize that may be hard to find so don't worry about it too much. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If it conflicts with BLP, I can remove that paragraph completely. Let me know. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not positive that it conflicts with BLP, but I would rather not have it there. Let's get another opinion. Hey, talk page stalkers - what do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You rang m'lady? I've had a look and my mind goes back to Talk:Colyton Grammar School#Controversy section, where I suggested that controversial details should be trimmed down per BLP, so I agree with Melanie's thoughts. As it stands, the article is far too lop sided towards the teacher controversy and really needs to be pared down to the basics. Also, I would recommend getting two reliable sources for each claim, ideally one with national coverage. Local journalism trying to dig up dirt on teachers isn't really what good BLP sourcing is about, so a second source can neutralise that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie. So your thought is, keep but trim? What if there is no other source - just the one hyperlocal paper? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to get some definite advice for CookieMonster. I'll ping a couple more people too. @Drmies: @Northamerica1000: Any thoughts about the paragraph in Pine Eagle Charter School regarding the disciplining of the teacher? Choices appear to be: Keep, Keep but trim, or Remove entirely. --MelanieN (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Got the ping, but I'm going to pass on becoming involved in this matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, I've given it a go and trimmed it down to something that I thank has got due weight over the rest of the article. The newspaper headline doesn't mention the teacher by name, which suggests that isn't the important facet of the story, so I've just gone with the more generic "a teacher". I think we've now got a better balance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoa. I completely agree with Ritchie333's trimming--even though he's a recent admin and thus his sanity and editorial insight are no longer to be taken for granted. The previous version was a serious BLP violation. And I wonder too about the shooting drill--typically we don't report on such things in BLPs until there's a conviction, or something really widely publicized: this is still news, and I'm certainly not in favor of including this in the article. What we need here is a lawyer someone with some good sense, knowledge of the law, an administrative tool, and experience with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Did someone ping Newyorkbrad? NYB, please: we can use your expertise here. Thanks Ritchie, thanks Melanie, and thanks Cookiemonster. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad Drmies - MelanieN - Ritchie333 - Thank you for your comments. I am very sorry for adding so much BLP volition in the article. I did go to overboard with the article. Hopefully you can forgive me about that, it really was an honest mistake. I will take more time to re-read BLP guidelines again. I do thank you for trimming down the article. I am glad I have editors like you to fix my mistakes, literally. Wikipedia is a growing community. If you have any tips about not being biased with BLP content in articles, I would appreciate it. Cheers my fellow Wikipedians. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't apologize, Cookiemonster. You did exactly the right thing: you asked for advice. As you could see, even I was not positive in my opinion and wanted additional opinions. In the future do the same thing: make the edit, but ask someone else for their opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. The "teacher misconduct" section does not belong this article, not even in its shortened form; this topic is not of encyclopedic notability under any reasonable standard. I also don't think we need as much detail, if any, as the article currently has about the lawsuit over the shooting drill; in particular, it certainly is not necessary to include the names of the individual defendants. (Frankly, this article is leading me to reconsider my opinion that high schools are automatically notable, but that is a separate issue.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful input, Brad. (I assume the bill for your services is in the mail?) I have deleted the "teacher misconduct" section and trimmed the "suprise drill" section, which IMO is worth keeping. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad, thanks for weighing in. And while I have your ear, if I do, please have a look at Lululemon Athletica and its talk page--I'm talking about the murder, and your input would be greatly appreciated. (Also, I agree with you on the notability thing: existence here means notability, with the result that we've become a depository for listings of state championships in track and field and second and third runner-ups in bowling.)

  CookieMonster755, all's well that ends well. Melanie rarely leads people astray and she knows who to ask (in this case, she knew someone who knew someone). Drmies (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Rule 1. Drmies is always right
Rule 2. When Drmies is in fact wrong, refer to rule 1

Thanks for your help, Drmies. In the future I might as well just always ping you, because you know everybody. There used to be a saying among engineering students: The perfect engineer answers every question with "I don't know, but I know where I can find out." Maybe the perfect Wikipedian answers every question with "I don't know, but I know who to ask." --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A good collaborative effort all round, I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Australia Dairy Company

Hello MelanieN

Thanks for your attention at Category:Speedy deletion candidates and I'm aware of your recent deletion of the above article per A7. The article was not actually eligible for this criterion because A7 does not applies to articles with a claim of significance. However, this one, The Guardian, Ling in De House, this, Without Baggage, this magazine and this review to mention few, are enough for the article to pass A7. Will you consider to restore the article. I have no prejudice against its deletion through AfD but the article is likely to survive AfD. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Wikicology. I will restore the article to your userspace, so that you can improve it at your leisure, without time pressure and without somebody tagging it again. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it is at User:Wikicology/Australia Dairy Company. Go ahead and expand it and add references, and when you are happy with it, you can restore it to article space. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and also for the minor edit on my userpage yesterday. I really don't have time to expand it but will source and move it to article space as stub for now. What do you think? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's up to you, but as a stub it's been speedy-deleted twice now. I would recommend you leave it in userspace until you have something more than a stub, but it's your call. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I presumed, It got deleted because its notability was not established with reliable sources. Nonetheless, I will follow your advice. Would you like to glance through WP:MOSQUITOES, an essay I wrote few days ago, your suggestion will be helpful. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so SO much.

You have been far too kind to me and my Lamont Johnson article. I sincerely appreciate the time you took to help me reformat the article. It was such a kind thing for you to do. At this point, I am nervous to make edits to the article since I'm worried I'll unintentionally make a mistake and have someone delete it! I'm reading the rules of Wikipedia and learning... but truly THANK YOU SO MUCH! I wish I could hug you!!! :)

JazzWithin (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and thank you for the additional references and information. Don't worry, the article won't get deleted just because you don't do everything perfectly! Editing mistakes can be fixed; it's the notability of the subject that matters. If you can find any more sources, particularly anything written about him by a newspaper or magazine, that would help a lot. To be honest I can't guarantee that the article won't be deleted. The criteria for having an article about a musician can be found at WP:MUSIC. I think he meets the criteria, but others may disagree. But at least it won't be speedy-deleted - not without a discussion and a process. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I don't know if persuading me to finally get round to filing an RfA counts as "a tedious, but needed admin task", but of all the support I have had, I think you have been the most enthusiastic and encouraging about convincing me that I could do some good work with the tools if I put my mind to it. Thank you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank YOU for picking up the mop! I said at your RfA what Kudpung said at mine: We don't owe it to you to give you a mop; you owe it to us to accept one! I hope you enjoy adminship - and tolerate the occasional hassles with your usual good humor. See you at the next cabal meeting! --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Continued puffery at Mad Max: Fury Road

We got one of the puffery-IPs to come to the talk page, but the main one is still active and edit warring: [11]. This editor, who IP hops, has bypassed 3RR by now: [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. A few of us – three already, I think – are already at 3RR simply from trying to maintain some degree of neutrality. And there are others, too: [16] and [17]. I think we need page protection, at least to give us a breather and force discussion. If you don't want to deal with it, I understand that, and I guess I can go to ANI or RFPP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, User:NinjaRobotPirate. I'll take another look. There were several considerations here, including the fact that some IPs do seem to be making constructive edits, but maybe a short term protection is necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I semi-protected it for 24 hours. I'm not sure how much that is going to help, because some of the over-enthusiastic editors are autoconfirmed. But I can see that a number of you are struggling to keep the article encyclopedic, and maybe this will help. --MelanieN (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edit to Pretty Girls (Iyaz song), to protect it from disruptive editing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Looks like things have been pretty quiet at that article with the protection in place. If disruption resumes when the protection expires, ask again. --MelanieN (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN:  Done Will do in future. –– TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mad Max

Hi Melanie, see, they keep coming: [18][19] Same "critical acclaim" language. Am I just being paranoid? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yikes! It does seem like some kind of conspiracy, doesn't it? I'm not sure what we can do about it; those two are autoconfirmed users so not affected by semi-protection, and I really can't see fully-protecting the article over this. You may just have to keep playing whack-a-mole, unless you can detect some kind of connection among these users. (Could they all be socks?) --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Filmfan has been here for almost a year; during that time they have made the exact same type of edit ("acclaim", "universal acclaim") to articles about many films. [20] [21] [22] [23] It seems to be all they do here. Broncosman not so much; they have been here since 2013, and they have occasionally made the same type of edit [24] , but they mostly make constructive/factual edits. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's another one: [25]. PSpepper1 first edited in 2013. My guess would be paid editing ring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess they must have paid PSpepper extra, since their addition was so over-the-top! 0;-D I really don't know what if anything can be done in a situation like this.
@Drmies: @Kudpung: What we have here is very persistent addition of puffery phrases, especially "universal acclaim", by many different editors, to the article about the movie Mad Max: Fury Road. At first it was by IPs. After I semi-protected the article, established editors took up the refrain. They aren't edit warring, they aren't exactly vandalizing, there's no obvious evidence of COI; my hunch is that there is nothing we can do about it, short of full protection which I don't think is warranted. I wondered if you folks know of any way to respond in a situation like this? Or are they playing enough within the rules that we just have to keep reverting? --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

There's an additional funkiness too: There are only about four or so regular WikiProject TV editors (including myself) who are trying to maintain NPOV. These accounts are coming out of hibernation and yesterday pushed most of us to the limit of 3RR. So more eyes would definitely be helpful, along with comments on the article's talk page to at least re-state what community consensus is, and what normal film editing standards are. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Does it count as a 3RR violation if you are reverting DIFFERENT edits from different people? --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, but some admins are very touchy, and I don't think any of the editors who have built reputations on following community standards are willing to take the risk. If, for instance, I were a vandal, I could easily be blocked for 3RR if four good-faith editors kept reverting me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Melanie, consider WP:EW without staring yourself blind at 3R. Three reverts isn't some kind of god-given right anyway... Drmies (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Someone pinged me? If it's 3R, ping Bbb23--though Bbb is probably living it up in some remote chalet, or a cabana on a beach somewhere, getting pedicures and drinking cocktails. I thought this was going to be something exciting, since I saw on the interwebz that apparently the...what's it called? Pro-Man movement? wait...Binksternet, what were those people called that claimed that men were being oppressed? (It's something like "Mixed Martial Arts"...) Anyway, I read that the pro-men men were discouraging people from watching the new Mad Max movie, and that would be exciting. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I buried my ping in the middle of a paragraph. My question was if there's anything that can be done when the same puffery edit keeps getting added by different people - autoconfirmed users - or if we just have to play whack-a-mole. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I don't really see evidence of socking, though their names are strangely the same. I'm about to look at the talk page discussion. But a regular way to deal with this is getting a kind of consensus and start warning for disruptive editing. It's a lousy thing to have to do, but if they keep inserting this unencyclopedic phrasing a block may have to happen. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Wait, I see now that Broncosman12 has placed a note on the talk page. Well played, Broncosman--but shouldn't you have number 18? Drmies (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh very True my friend Broncosman12 (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)broncosman12

Yeah so I was not aware of the whole critical acclaim conspiracy until now so from now on I'll stick to guidelines Broncosman12 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)broncosman12

Regarding MREs or MMAs or whatever they are called, the less my life intersects with their concerns, the higher quality it is. If their outpourings get out of hand I may have put on hip waders to deal with the dreck, but it's not my preferred pastime. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Gee, are those Meals Ready to Eat really that bad? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Haha, they're joking around with it on @Midnight: "those men are so insecure that they're threatened by a fictional movie character", and now they're playing "genderswapping movies". MRM, that's what it is. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• #GenderSwapAMovie for all you Twitterers. Here's a response to the call for action. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that Wired article was hilarious. Horrors - a strong female role in an action movie? Will these revisionists stop at nothing? Next thing you know, they'll be letting women serve as administrators at Wikipedia - and that will be TEOCAWKI! --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If you think that's bad, you should hear what happens when an entire male cast is rumored to be replaced by females, as with the Ghostbusters reboot: [26]. Or when a white comic book character is played by a black actor: [27]. I think this has always happened, but the Internet gives everyone a soapbox from which to shout their opinions. Anyway, there's more discussion going on at the talk page, and a lot of the edit warring/disruption has died down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone fancy a pint?

Yum

I'm going to be off-wiki for large portions of the weekend, so could you or an amenable colleague have a look at Brew Bus Brewing and see if its salvageable as an article. I've added two local news sources that cover it as a main topic, and there are others, but I could really do with some national coverage to make it stick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm also away from the computer for the weekend but I'll take a look on Monday. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Objection for Proposed deletion

I have objected to proposed deletion of my article, but still it got deleted, could you please let me know the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrekanth1 (talk • contribs)

Please tell me the name of your article. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

(stalking) @Shrekanth1: High range book of world records was deleted in this debate. You can find out why it was deleted by reading the comments, but in summary a news search showed no hits, which means nobody could verify whether anything in the article was true or important enough to go in an article. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the stalk, Ritchie. I will add a comment at their talk page, since it looks as if they have created this article several times under different titles. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Help

I would need your assistant in becoming a better wikipedian,eventhough i have some article i need directions,my specialty is football or soccer if you can assist me in becoming better i would be grateful so that i can wright article about my country's league,African Champions league and UEFA champions league as a whole. (Jwale2 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC))

Replied at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much MelanieN would do as you have said and i hope you andCullen³²⁸ would stay in touch with my,thanks ones again (Jwale2 (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC))

Message from User:DerrickMa5

Hi Melanie, DerrickMa5 tried to leave you a message about deleting his articles. I've posted it below so that you get the new message banner, although I'm sure you're watching your userpage anyway. I left Derrick a message about how to send messages, but haven't explained the deletion. Be warned though, you might get banned if you keep doing admin work! James086^Talk 05:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC) [[User:DerrickMa5 Note: Well Sometimes It Very Mad But It Could Be On Deletion That I Have In Here. I Delete My Speedy Deletion But Could Be No Meaning Words Or That. I'll Said That I'm In Charge To My Page. But I'm Going Be Fine That I Should Request My Adminstrator. Well Thank You User:James086 For Participating By This Message. You Could Go My Page Any You Want. But I'll Give You That Could See This. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerrickMa5 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Why You Deleting My Pages This Not Fair. Your Looking Liked Getting Reports For This Sign It Will Ban You For 30 Days It Not Good To Upload And Click Backspace Where Did This From. Don't Delete My Page This Was My Message And Unfairly For Legal. Now You Gotta Tell Me What You Did For I Know This That When I Upload This 1 More Time Or Get Banned From Wiki Got It To MelanieN

Thanks, User:James086. He certainly told me! I'll reply at his talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

With a bit of reformatting, you could turn that above message into a Shakespearean sonnet. Shall I compare thee to an abusive admin? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:DerrickMa5 ??????? Seriously He Reply To You. — Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Check your email, I've sent you a message :) James086^Talk 04:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Creation protected and the bot

I saw your comment at RFPP and I also noticed this. I think the bot isn't seeing the creation protected pages correctly. I've left a note at User talk:cyberpower678#Creation protected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

...and by the way, CambridgeBayWeather, after crossing paths many times at RFPP, it's nice to "meet" you! --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to meet you too. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Help request

Hi Melanie, seeking your help on something if you're willing; just the sort of challenge that might appeal to you. The article Deborah Solomon is in desperate need of repair. Major changes to the article were made on 27 March 2015 that appear clearly biased and unfairly negative towards Solomon. I have been forced to take administrative action that has resulted in a block, now an SPI, and will need to look at the appropriate response now that a CU has been conducted. I recognized early on that there are issues with the article but as this dispute has progressed, it's clear to me that I should not edit the article, even in a minor capacity, to balance it out and take administrative action. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to look at the article for the purposes of writing a more neutral and fair biography on Solomon. I think if someone can do that, much of this will be resolved. It appears to be a classic case of new users, WP:AUTOBIO and WP:NPOV all clashing together. I have written a fairly thorough report of the timeline at User:Mkdw/Deborah Solomon and Wikipedia. I'm particularly concerned about this article and needing to have it resolved; there are important potential implications based upon who the editors might be; and that this is potentially a larger dispute that has been covered in the mainstream media and is now here on Wikipedia. Mkdw^talk 14:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Thanks for the suggestion. I took a look and I agree that the article is unbalanced. The main problem is that huge subsection about the "Norman Rockwell controversy". It is not only WP:UNDUE but it does not honestly reflect the critical and media reaction to the book. In fact, in the half-dozen major reviews I read, the homosexuality aspect was mentioned in passing or in a paragraph at most. I am in the process or writing an entirely new section, about her books and the critical reaction to them, as is appropriate for an article about an author. I mentioned this on the talk page and, barring comments there, I will insert it in place of the "controversy" section in a day or two. There may be other things that need attention but that seemed like the biggie. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

MelanineN, you've done a great job with the article. Thank you so much for taking a pass at it. Mkdw^talk 20:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Article rescue is something I like to do. I've watchlisted it in case it gets out of whack again. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cameron Dallas (Vine)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cameron Dallas (Vine). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andise1 (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --MelanieN (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Soft delete

Is that a new term, that I was simply unaware of? Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a new term; see WP:Soft delete. Administrators differ on how to close an AfD discussion that has little or no participation, and no "keep" !votes, after multiple relistings. Some people close it as "No consensus", sometimes adding "NPASR" - meaning "no prejudice against speedy renomination", or in other words, you can immediately resubmit it to AfD if you want. Others, including me, prefer to treat such discussions as the equivalent of an uncontested PROD; the article gets deleted but can be restored on request. That's a soft delete. Is that more information than you asked for? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Tx. Always learning ... I see the proposed Soft Delete Proposal failed, but glancing at it that was a whole different concept. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15