User talk:MelanieN/Archive 64

Daniel Hardcastle
Hi, I was just wondering if you could reverse the create protection on Daniel Hardcastle that you placed several years ago. He now definitely meets the notability requirements, and the article's draft is complete. If you have any concerns please let me know.

dmartin969 02:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, dmartin969. I'll reverse it; there is clearly a lot more to say about him now than there used to be. It was previously deleted at AfD, but this is not the same article. However, I would suggest that before you move it to mainspace, you get a few better references. For example there must be a better reference for "Sunday Times bestseller" than "influencerupdate.biz". Maybe the Sunday Times itself? Four references are youtube, two are twitter - not generally accepted as sources. I think the article will have a much better chance of surviving if you can find and add a few mainstream published sources. That's just my advice; I'll unlock the title and from there on it's up to you. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * MelanieN I went ahead and moved the article, after properly citing The Financial Times' actual list. Could you also unsalt Nerdcubed, just so I could create a redirect. Thanks. dmartin969  04:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Help needed!
Hello! My name is Razvan ONOFREI! You wrote on my talk page the following: I work in the IT and human resources department of the University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest (the largest technical university in Romania). My attempt to create a WIKIPEDIA page for Professor Gheorghe MARIA represents the beginning of a personal initiative to make known in the WIKIPEDIA environment the scientific activity of some great personalities of the Romanian academic life at my university. I have no personal relationship with Professor Gheorghe MARIA and I was not paid by him for this project (as I said, this is a voluntary activity). I and Professor MARIA work in different sections of the university (which are on different campuses). As I before said I work in the administrative section of the university (in information technology issues) while Professor MARIA works at the Faculty of Applied Chemistry and Materials Science. I knew him as well as other members of this faculty because I was assigned the task of managing the website of this faculty. The decision to contribute to WIKIPEDIA is due to the fact that I am an information technology, computers, internet, web etc. enthusiast and, of course, a great admirer of WIKIPEDIA, the platform to which I would be very pleased to bring my contribution. The decision to write in WIKIPEDIA articles about scientific personalities from my university is due to the personal finding that Romanian scientists (in general but also those from my university) and their achievements are not sufficiently promoted in the online environment, as they should. I made the decision to start my project with Professor MARIA because he is probably the member with the most consistent (absolutely impressive) scientific activity of Faculty of Applied Chemistry and Materials Science, but also because he is one of the few teachers from the university who is also a member of the Romanian Academy. In these circumstances, being new to the WIKIPEDIA environment and thus prone to making involuntary mistakes, I ask for your support in my effort to achieve what I have presented above! With many thanks! Razvan.ONOFREI (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Razvan, and sorry I missed it when you posted this on your talk page. I'm going to answer you there. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Page was deleted
Hi there, still learning my way around. I was looking for info on a subject and noticed that you deleted the subject's page. This deletion should not have happened, because the subject meets Wikipedia criteria for notability: a minimum of 3 reputable sources that write about subject. Told to contact you for discussion of undeletion. Did not see a space for that. How to discuss? Please inform! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20clarity20 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, 20Clarity, and thanks for the note. What is the subject or article you are looking for? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Okasi. Posted and found several reputable sources written about subject:

1. Real Clear Politics - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/20/china_okasi_boko_haram_will_be_a_problem_for_hillary_clinton.html

2. AIM.org - https://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/nigerian-journalist-says-that-hillary-clinton-will-be-hurt-in-2016-by-her-refusal-to-put-boko-haram-on-terrorist-list-video/

3. AdWeek - https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/women-of-media-reception-draws-cable-crowd/129407/

Doesn't look like the page should have been deleted in the first place. Subject meets Wikipedia criteria.


 * The article was deleted in 2016 per a community discussion, Articles for deletion/China Okasi. I see that you recreated it today and it is in danger of speedy deletion. I will take a look and get back to you. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at the deleted, 2016 article. It did not have any Reliable Sources, and the conclusion of the discussion was that it was too soon in her career for her to be notable. Your current rewrite has a few more references but they are not enough to qualify for an article either. Most of them are WP:Primary sources - the source is Okasi herself or something she herself wrote. The Vibe is not a major source and barely mentions her. The Wrap doesn’t mention her. I’m sorry, but it is going to get deleted again until there starts to be major coverage ABOUT her from independent reliable sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see that you suggested three more sources here. Two are about a one-paragraph quote of something she said on an interview show. I can’t read the AdWeek one because it is behind a paywall, but whatever it says is not going to be enough. For a journalist to be notable, there needs to be reporting ABOUT her from independent reliable sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

As a viewer, this all just seems odd. Does Wiki have any stipulations against "one-paragraph quotes?" To my knowledge, Wiki states that being written about is the criterion. You are personally inserting unwritten rules about whether the write-up should be a paragraph or more. The lady's name is in the title of these articles--and both are reputable sources: Real Clear Politics is extremely reputable and so is AIM.org. I watched Osaki on air a few days ago, and searched for info on her, found a deleted Wiki page, and thought that very strange. Why would someone who's been editor-in-chief of a major African-American women's publication, founder of a women's media conference that brought Tamron Hall & Megyn Kelly together, Ivy League person or the other, obvious television head as cited by reputable publication articles, even in their subject lines (whether you subjectively approve of their approach or not), not have a Wiki page? It's even odder that it was found and deleted. I've been (shamelessly) reading Wiki pages and have found several people that don't even come anywhere close to this profile. Your reasoning sounds a bit biased and not according to anything I have read in Wiki's rules. But do what you will. Was just my first attempt at creating what I thought was needed/missing!20clarity20 (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me. I see that the article still exists, although it is still tagged for speedy deletion, and some people have been editing it. Maybe someone will remove the speedy deletion tag and the article will stay. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, got it, MelanieN. Anthony Appleyard, I see you have deleted the page, but I think it should be undeleted. I am unsure how to talk on your page, so I am citing you here. Apologies if that is not Wiki protocol. I am a new enthusiast. Please see the notes above. Osaki should not have been deleted, because the subject meets the criteria laid out by Wiki. Not by opinion. I was searching for more info about her and wondered why there was no Wiki page. Wiki's notability criteria is three sources that discuss the subject. The subject passes that test. If you are responsible for undeleting, please do so. 20clarity20 (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Vacation
vacation Enjoy, while the usual stalkers keep an eye open here! — JFG talk 19:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I love my stalkers! -- MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For America! Salutes Melania --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm back. Sort of. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! sort of! --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Evan Pettiwhisker Tildrum
Hey,

Looking through the edit request backlog, I'm wondering why fully protected? I notice the target article has vandalism issues, but surely that should only be a reason for a semi-protect? Sceptre (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It took me a while to realize you were talking about the redirect page itself. I don't understand why its fully protected as opposed to semi-protected but maybe its because if it were to be vandalized it would take a while to catch? I don't know the real reason but I'm curious as to why this concerns you. Are there changes you wish to make? --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's currently an edit request at CAT:EP. It's not within the spirit of the encyclopedia for pages to be indefinitely full-protected without a very good reason. Sceptre (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It took me an even longer while to find said "good reasons". Whether or not the full protection is warranted is not up to me but I did dig up some leads for you here and here. Seems it has to do with a persistent sockpuppet. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for missing this discussion, I'm out of town. I don't remember all the details of why I fully protected this redirect, but I know it related to some troll with multiple socks who was adding this name to dozens of unrelated articles. That spammer was able to bypass semi protection. I now see that there are legitimate reasons for editing this redirect and would agree with reducing the protection to semi. I can't do it myself right now, so if someone else wants to do it go ahead. Otherwise I will do it myself next week. MelanieN alt (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey MelanieN! I changed the protection level per the message left on my page. Enjoy your time away. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you c: --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah It should be semi-protected now. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hickory! MelanieN alt (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Pertaining to research requests


Hello. Regarding the first of your September "Research requests" on the Trump–Ukraine talk page as seen here, I have come across an NYTimes article that says: "As far back as March...Mr. Kent pointed to Mr. Giuliani’s role in what he called a 'disinformation' campaign intended to use a Ukrainian prosecutor to smear Mr. Trump’s adversaries." (NYT article here).

Mr. Kent is a a State Department official in charge of Ukraine policy. Anyway, my point is, this stuff with Giuliani goes back to March, according to this article. And I know you were looking for January or February, and I don't know if you had any luck with that. But this moves the timeline back to March. I don't know if this is helpful or not. Regards, Steve Quinn (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * P.S.
 * I hope you are enjoying vacation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. I discovered a reputable source (NYT) that says (January 2019) "Rudolph W. Giuliani, meets in New York for hours with a Ukrainian prosecutor. Mr. Giuliani pushes for information about — and investigations into — Mr. Trump’s rivals, including Mr. Biden. Mr. Giuliani briefs Mr. Trump on his efforts." . It is a timeline.

Here is a couple lines in another NYT article :

"[Giuliani] said Mr. Parnas also helped arrange a trip to the United States for Mr. Lutsenko in January. During it, the prosecutor met for hours with Mr. Giuliani in New York."

The timeline is linked to that article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've come across this timeline before and didn't pay attention to it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This article links several news pieces creating a timeline showing Ukrainian extortion started much earlier in Trump's presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.222.175.199 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll check it out, but Wonkette is not a reliable source. Maybe their sources are. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably can't use it. She was quoting a WaPo piece by David Ignatius, who is often right on these things - but he published it on the op-ed page as an opinion piece, without citing sources or saying how he knows. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Audible Applauding* --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain what the below means? This is regarding Politico and NYT articles on 'Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump' and a misleading sentence.
Sorry - I'm new to this. I haven't tried anything since my car accident in 2016. Also - I am RBWilson one thousand … not ten thousand

25 October 2019 (UTC)— RBWilson1000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC). There is no such account as RBWilson10000. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Thank you, Melanie. I’ve since corrected and signed. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBWilson1000 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, that was my mistake. When I clicked on your name and found that you do not have a user page, I was in a hurry and misread it to think that there was no such account. But now I see you do have an account, created in September 2016. I will remove my comment from the article talk page, and again, I apologize. I think you could avoid such misperceptions if you would start either a user page or a talk page, even just a single sentence, so that when you make a post there is some actual link to your account here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie - I created one. RBWilson1000 (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Mail
---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please chill out
Hi MelanieN. Glad to see you helping out at Ukraine Scandal. I'd appreciate it if you'd take the time to give another close read of the talk page activity from the time you were away. And please try not to be so harsh in your talk page comments. I know you don't mean it to come off that way, but your recent messages sound rather imperious and self-centered rather than collaborative. JMHO. Cheers.  SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait, are you serious? ~Awilley (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, SPECIFICO. Interesting that you should bring up that article’s page, I have been getting ready to caution you that you need to stop insisting on your own way and to respect consensus more. The latest example: suggesting that an active discussion about the lead should be hatted for several weeks (because the version currently in the article is the version you wrote and support). You insistently want to use the strongest possible words, things like like “coerce” and “extort”, in Wikipedia’s voice; you want to replace the Reliable Source word “investigations” with things like “providing damaging narratives” even though that phrase appears nowhere in any reliable source. Both “coerce” and “providing damaging narratives” are in the lead sentence you wrote (and want to prevent any further discussion about). You are entitled to your opinion about what should be in the article, but in the context of community discussion. BTW I assume your note here is because I cautioned you not to attribute words to people that they didn’t actually say. That actually seems like a pretty reasonable suggestion, don’t you think? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

To an EotW All-Star
I knock around Wikipedia here and there looking for future Editors of the Week. In doing so, I quite often run into you at work guiding a discussion or keeping a fair equilibrium and balance to what goes into an article. Dennis Brown has retired but his congratulatory message (below) to you back in 2014 still rings loud and clear.&#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   14:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just now noticed this, and glad to see others have noticed Melanie. We both started in 2006, so I've seen you poking around here and there for years.  Every time I see you, I see good things.  You aren't one to jump out and steal the spot light; instead, you are are model Wikipedian that puts information above politics.  Excellent pick, and I'm personally glad to see you get a little recognition.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for this, Buster! Dennis became my mentor and he was the one who finally convinced me to stand for admin. I am very sad that he has retired. Thank you for all you do to find and recognize good editors. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Between you and me and the wall, any candidates? The queue is down to four.&#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   23:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll give it some thought. OK if I email you? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   17:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * An Award has been distributed.&#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   06:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)