User:FormalDude/Mentorship/Melchior2006

Pierrot
Thanks for setting this up! What do you think about the article Pierrot? It's huge, and a lot of people have complained about it. I want to make it more manageable and start new articles to accomodate the extras. Another issue with the Pierrot article is copyright. Lots of the writing is copied verbatim from online sources, and it seems like one of the authors of the article took text from his own book about Pierrot.

Other points (for the future, just want to note it here): articles about published books such as great books and not so great books.

PS: I noticed I can't sign my name here, does that mean I should be writing on the talk page? --Melchior2006


 * Hi ! It definetely seems like Pierrot is WP:TOOLONG and it's probably reasonable to WP:SPLIT out some of the content. I can review the article for copyright violations later, but for now you should read WP:COPYVIO, which goes over how to deal with copyright issues. Let me know if you have questions anytime.
 * And you should be able to sign here normally (with four tildes: ~). Also, please ping me each time you reply or comment here. –– FormalDude   talk   07:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just added Talk:Pierrot as a first step. I don't expect an answer since no one has answered my previous talk query. What do you think about splitting the other parts, like Pierrot in the 18th century, or Pierrot in the 19th? Can I create articles with these titles? --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a possibility, but those two sections do seem pretty significant to the topic. I think it might make more sense to split off some of the lists of works that Pierrot appears in. And it's probably not a bad idea to start a general thread on the talk page about addressing the size of the article. If you do create anything, it should be done as drafts for now. –– FormalDude   talk   04:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for the tip about splitting off the lists of works. I will make some drafts. I started a discu thread several days ago and never heard anything. People have been bringing up the problem of length in the discu literally for years, and no one has done anything concrete. Do you know of Wikipedia lists-pages in comparable thematic areas? I would like to see how others tackled this challenge. --Melchior2006 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Cultural references to Hamlet comes to mind. –– FormalDude   talk   22:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, one thing you can do to potentially gather more input from other editors is notifying relevant WikiProjects of the thread by posting at their talk pages. For Pierrot, that would be WT:WikiProject Fictional characters, WT:WikiProject Theatre, and WT:WikiProject France. –– FormalDude   talk   22:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Rather than starting three separate discussions, you should wikilink to a central discussion at Talk:Pierrot. –– FormalDude   talk   07:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, this content is not a copyright violation of http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Pierrot, as the text from that page is based on our Wikipedia article for Pierrot. This is called a WP:MIRROR. –– FormalDude   talk   07:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for the update. I will wait a few more days on the Pierrot front, and then make the drafts. Another question: this time in reference to German Wikipedia; how do you get an administrator's attention for a disputed edit? There are three Wikipedians who want to change a formulation, but a fourth refuses. And gets really vitriolic. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know the policies of German Wikipedia, but on English Wikipedia it would be best to just ping a recently active admin. Unless they need to be reported to a noticeboard, but it doesn't sound like that is the case here. –– FormalDude   talk   04:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * how do I find a "recently active admin"? Is there a list of them somewhere (on English wiki, for starters)? I looked around, but ... --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * En-wiki has this tool: https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/recently-active/?admins –– FormalDude   talk   09:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Checking in
Hi, just checking in. How's everything going? –– FormalDude   talk   03:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking in, ! I was on break the past two weeks, so my Wikiwork was more adhoc. I am back now, and hoping to get some good drafts in place in the next few days, so as to make Pierrot more useable. When I am done with that, I want to pare down the lush writing in the body of the article, to make it more like an encyclopedia. No one has so far entered into dialogue with me about my suggestions. --Melchior2006 (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just published the draft, let me know what you think. --Melchior2006 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to have you back. The draft looks good! I think your next step is to cultivate a strong lede section so that when it is ready to split, we can simply transclude it on Pierrot. –– FormalDude   talk   22:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. I have a question about the heading "Late twentieth/early twenty-first centuries (1951– ): notable works". A previous editor claimed that this was not sufficiently referenced. What do you think? To me, it seems as well-referenced as the other sections. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See my talk page for Dianaa's complaint of my "copying" onto the draft. I referred her to the Pierrot talk page and explained the context of the "copying". Is there anyway to avoid this kind of misunderstanding? --Melchior2006 (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * : Diannaa is a very experienced admin who is totally right. I should've reminded you about that. Any time you're splitting a page you need to provide attribution. It's just a simple comment that you make in your edit summary like Diannaa did here.
 * Additionally, that section does have a few less sources then the rest, but either way it's not a bad idea to search for more references to add. –– FormalDude   talk   19:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I reformulated the lead sentence and added a few more references. But I left the tag in, since there is a monumental amount of referencing that could still be done. May I submit the draft now? What to do about the "copying" once/if the draft is released? --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a draft you'll want to submit. You should either propose it on the talk page or just boldly split it once ready. The lead sentence should ideally be at least a paragraph given the amount of content. The referencing is probably okay for now. One other thing though, you'll want to list all Pierrot appearances, including from the 17th–19th centuries, if it is to be titled "Cultural references to Pierrot". Otherwise it would probably need to called something like "Modern cultural references to Pierrot". –– FormalDude   talk   08:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as long as the draft is moved (rather than copied and pasted) when published, the attribution will remain in Diannaa's edit in the page history, so that is taken care of. –– FormalDude   talk   08:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How about calling it "Twentieth-Century cultural references to Pierrot"? Or (to be precise): "Cultural references to Pierrot after 1900"? The reason I want to split the article is because the current section 6 of the main article goes into a different register; it morphs into a list, incredibly detailed and valuable, but at the same time overwhelming. --Melchior2006 (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Cultural references to Pierrot after 1900" could work, or also potentially "Cultural references to Pierrot (1900–present)". I personally think it'd be better to just list the references from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries additionally, since the page has room for it, and they're not in a list format anywhere else. Then the article could be titled simply "List of cultural references to Pierrot". –– FormalDude  (talk)  09:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I understand what you mean: I could single out the references from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries additionally and adapt them into a list format. The long version devoted to these centuries could then remain in the main article? --Melchior2006 (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. –– FormalDude  (talk)  10:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Should've reminded you of this earlier, but each time you copy material from an existing article, it needs to be attributed in the edit summary. Diannaa took care of it again for you on Draft:Cultural references to Pierrot. –– FormalDude  (talk)  22:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ok. If I understand D's move correctly, she changed some minor stuff like dashes and then added the info about copying from Pierrot in the edit summary. Is it sufficient to have the statement about copying listed in the edit summaries? --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Best practice would be to also add Copied to the talk page once it's moved to mainspace. –– FormalDude  (talk)  06:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do. I am getting ready to move the draft to the main space and then delete the 19th century listings from the Pierrot page. Is there anything else I should consider? I thought about deleting all the images from the draft, since they are redundant. On the other hand, they do have their value as point of orientation. What do you think? --Melchior2006 (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In what sense do you mean redundant? Because most of them will be removed from Pierrot when you delete the merged content, right? It is a lot of images, I'd review them to make sure they're all relevant, and then remove the least significant/quality images. –– FormalDude  (talk)  11:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw that you removed the "too long tag"; do you think I should continue to tighten the loose formulations etc.? --Melchior2006 (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC) --Melchior2006 (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC) --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the page needs any more trimming. –– FormalDude  (talk)  06:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This Salzurg

 * Can I ask you a question about this draft? I plan to insert a pithy quote from every chapter of the book. There is one example already for A few pertinent remarks on the subjet of the Salzburg Festival (81–98). Do you see any copyright problems here? --Melchior2006 (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That does seem like it would be a copyright violation. Per WP:COPYQUOTE, excessive quotations are not allowed and quoted material should not make up a substantial portion of the copyrighted work. –– FormalDude  (talk)  13:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks. Does it matter that the book was published in 1937? --Melchior2006 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's one of the reasons it's still copyrighted. If it had been published before January 1, 1927 it would be public domain by now. –– FormalDude  (talk)  14:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I moved my page on Aysegül Saras into the main space, thanks for the advice. The article you recommended was behind a pay wall, unfortunately, but I found other interviews. May I ask about This Salzburg ... what do you think the page needs most before moving it to the main space? --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You qualify for TWL which should have that source available for free. Another way to get around paywalls is to access the source via internet archive. This Salzburg looks like it could use some more references. –– FormalDude  (talk)  08:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know The New Yorker was on TWL! In which collection? --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Upon further investigation it apparently is not on TWL (my bad). But again internet archive bypasses the paywall. –– FormalDude  (talk)  08:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ayşegül Savaş

 * Thanks for the award! I will continue to reduce the Pierrot on the in-line level. I also want to start a draft on Ayşegül Savaş, a Turkish-American writer who has written a lot for literary magazines and has two or three novels out. Here is my draft so far... Do you think the article would get deleted because she is too young? --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! Too young isn't a valid reason for deletion, but failing WP:GNG is. This seems like a notable topic though, just make sure to add quality sources, like this New Yorker interview for example. –– FormalDude   (talk)  09:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * can you give me a hand organizing the Authority file? I have Savas' Library of Congress number (n2018025696), but I can't seem to locate the template. --Melchior2006 (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by the authority file? I'm not sure what that is. –– FormalDude  (talk)  14:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant Authority control.
 * I think I just added it. –– FormalDude  (talk)  19:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Authority control. I noticed that in all the categories, she is listed under A but should be under S. How can I fix that? --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

by the way, can you give me a hint about my last question in the above section? I still haven't been able to figure it out. --Melchior2006 (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed, see my most recent edit to the page. –– FormalDude  (talk)  22:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * this article really jumped into the public eye a few days back; thanks for you help with it. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to hear it. Good work. ––FormalDude (talk)

deleting a sandbox page

 * I was wondering if you, as an admin, can delete User:Melchior2006/MBMünster, since there are certainly no links to it. It is very difficult to delete pages in the English wiki, so I thought I would ask you. --Melchior2006 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin. Are you talking about deleting your user subpage or the article Maria Birgitta zu Münster? –– FormalDude  (talk)  15:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For your sandbox page all you have to do is add and an admin will delete it for you shortly. –– FormalDude   (talk)  15:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * excellent, thanks for your help! Sorry about me calling you an admin, I just thought you were one, since you are so experienced. May I ask you how our tutorial should continue? Do you have suggestions? --Melchior2006 (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! I'm happy to continue however you'd like. I can go over some basic tips to becoming a more productive editor. Or if there's something specific you'd like to work towards, like becoming a WP:AFC or WP:NPP reviewer, I can create a program for that. You could take a look at WP:JOBS and see if anything peaks your interest. –– FormalDude  (talk)  15:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Jobs for editors
Hi, thanks for the suggestions. My preference is to concentrate on Wiki articles about Theater and Church History. I seek to improve the quality of articles in these areas. In the past, not a few of my attempts at improving have led to disputes with other editors who refused to allow changes, for whatever reason. Conflict resolution is one of Wikipedia's weak spots. But if you have advice on how to do this kind of work better, I would be interested. --Melchior2006 (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as conflict resolution, I think it's best if you reach out to me whenever you encounter these situations in the future. WP:DR has a lot of options and I can guide you to the best solution.
 * I think we should get you started with some common tools as well. Do you use WP:TWINKLE to edit yet? –– FormalDude  (talk)  14:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the Twinkle suggestion. I just enabled it among my settings. Let me know if there are tutorials out there... --Melchior2006 (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You should now have a tab at the top of every page next to "More" that says "TW". This is where you access Twinkle. Depending on the page you're on, you can do different things. In mainspace, you can use Twinkle to quickly tag articles for maintenance, deletion, or page protection. In userspace, you can report editors to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, or WP:SPI. In user talkspace, you can quickly add user warning and welcome templates. –– FormalDude  (talk)  19:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks, it looks like a major help. Could you give me a quick definition of main space vs. user space? --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Userspace is pages that have the prefix "User:" like User:Melchior2006. Mainspace is articles, pages that don't have any prefix. –– FormalDude  (talk)  21:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks to your tip about Twinkle. I just had my first delete go through. May I ask a question about ? In the source editing, this is all that I find. But is it not necessary to provide more information like norm data (LC numbers and the like)? I also seek to understand how to provide the quick summary that shows up when you link an article, like Al Jolson being "a Lithuanian-American Jewish singer, comedian, actor, and vaudevillian." Maybe you can help. --Melchior2006 (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read Template:Authority control? It looks like sometimes additional information is necessary, sometimes it isn't. I honestly don't know that much about WikiData and this template, so you might be better served asking at the Teahouse.
 * The quick summary sounds like you're referring to WP:Page previews which is just an optional setting in your preferences that provides a preview of the lede section of the article. If you change the lede, you change the preview. –– FormalDude  (talk)  10:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections
Hi, hope you're doing well! You should have recently received a message that the 2022 ArbCom elections are now underway. As your mentor, I wanted to reach out and see if you had any questions about it. A lot of users do not participate simply because they don't know who they should vote for or what an Arbitrator even does! You can read an overview of the Arbitration Committee's functions here. If you'd like guidance in participating in the elections, please let me know! –– FormalDude  (talk)  04:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Tonia Navar
Hi, could you perhaps take a look at this draft and tell me what you think? It still needs a little work, but I would be glad to have some feedback from you before I release it. Thanks! --Melchior2006 (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not bad! It's a little nonstandard, you should probably condense some sections into a personal life section. You may wish to add an infobox and a table of her works per WP:FILMOGRAPHY as well. –– FormalDude  (talk)  01:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions! I will expand the draft in the next few days. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Brecht Boycott in Vienna for English Wiki
Hi ! Do you think this matter would be accepted if I translated it into English for en.WP? --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, so long as you bring the sources along with it. ––FormalDude (talk)  08:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Avoiding edit-conflicts
Hi ! I got reverted here after making reasonable suggestions. The Core Curriculum section reads like a description in a course catalogue and is too detailed for the article. My question: how to proceed according to Wiki etiquette? The user who reverted seems takes a position of making final decisions on many edits, reverts, and stuff. I would welcome your comments. --Melchior2006 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I guess you could say my main question is: do reverts always count as valid? I get the impression that if one "reverts a revert", in the eyes of some editors this is already nearing vandalism. But the first reverter is not always willing to explain his/her actions on the talk page. So how does one proceed? --Melchior2006 (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It depends. Speaking to this particular revert by Sdkb, you did the right thing by addressing it on the talk page, and it seems a compromise was reached. Unless you have another issue with Sdkb's revert that you mention on the talk page, you shouldn't undo their revert. If Sdkb had never responded, it would be okay to undo their revert after providing ample time for them to respond. What you really need to avoid is edit warring, where you and another editor go back and forth reverting multiple times. The rule of thumb is WP:3RR, although some articles in contentious topics do have stricter edit warring policies. ––FormalDude (talk)  13:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , actually, the talk point was something different than the revert point. The revert sequence goes like this:
 * Melchior deletes a section about "core curriculum" featured at the college because it is overly detailed and not particularly different than any number of similar curricula at any college.
 * Sdkb reverts, explaining: "I disagree, because I think Core Curriculum is important."
 * Discussion is over.
 * This seems like a very limited discussion, since I will probably never be able to convince Sdkb to change her mind. What other options are available? --Melchior2006 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You complained about the lack of references and Sdkb pointed out that it is in fact referenced. You could advance your argument about relevance, or present another one if you have it. Sdkb may change their mind, they may not. Others may potentially weigh in as well, or if they don't, you can request a third opinion after thoroughly discussing the matter between the two of you. ––FormalDude (talk)  15:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , thank you! Sdkb and I were able to find a good solution. Your advice was very helpful. --Melchior2006 (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm dissolving the mentorship. Thank you for your time. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  20:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)