User talk:MelanieN

→

For your perusal.....

You made the news. Just a passing mention mind, no indepth coverage yet. ;) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and again here (at the bottom). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, and here it is again [1] in a separate story about the same issue. Think I'm notable yet? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Required Notification

This is to notify you that I have opened a complaint about your behavior in the Victoria Pynchon matter here:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Complaint About Editors' Behavior In Victoria Pynchon Deletion Discussion

Pernoctus (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I modified the link for the record when the discussion was archived. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hey there; as thanks for your great articles, I've granted you the "autopatrolled" userright :). Keep up the good work! Ironholds (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem! The articles you've been writing are awesome :). Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent RfCs on US city names

April 2012: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/June#WP:USPLACE was not officially made into an RfC or officially closed.

September-October 2012: On another page, Talk:Beverly Hills, California#Requested move was closed as "No move".

An extensive November 2012 discussion involving 55 people was closed as "maintain status quo (option B)". Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names.

A discussion in January 2013 later was never officially made into an RfC or officially closed; discussion died out with 18 editors opposed to a change and 12 in favor. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/February#Request for comment .

Discussion started in June 2013: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/June#Naming convention; speedy-closed per WP:SNOW.

December 2013-February 2014: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington? . Closed as "no consensus to change existing practice (that is, USPLACE)."

January-February 2014: Associated proposal for a moratorium on USPLACE discussions. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions. Closed as "There is a one year moratorium on changing the policy at WP:USPLACE unless someone can offer a reason that has not been discussed previously."

Article titles

It wasn't a comment that I deleted, it was an erroneous notice to "centralize" the discussion, when they're separate discussions:

FYI

 – There's an active RfC about this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Comics#rfc2, so please centralize discussion there.

This can only cause confusion at an RfC that has already been rebooted once due to confusion. Please revert your revert. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if the notice you disagree with has already been dealt with in the usual way - by commenting on it, disagreeing with it, discussing it. Other options would include asking the person who inserted the notice to remove it, or inserting a counter-notice. That's the Wikipedia way. Deleting the person's edit isn't. --MelanieN (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN

So? Should I ask someone to take Synthetic DNA for ITN? Jim Carter ^(talk) 19:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I just did. Hope I did it right. Thanks though! --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a minor mistake, which I fixed now. BTW someone has raised a possible issue please take a look at the nomination page. Cheers, Jim Carter ^(talk) 20:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic DNA

Hi Melanie... there are already a bunch of related articles on this. Drbogdan added news of this to them last night (see that user's contribs), and I followed after and moderated those additions. In light of articles we already have like Synthetic biology (which is the key article for the news piece, Expanded genetic code (which needs a ton of work), and especially Nucleic acid analogue which is exactly analogous to the article you created on Synthetic DNA, I don't think we need the new article. Would you be OK merging Synthetic DNA into Nucleic acid analogue? Additionally, as per WP:MEDRS content on this kind of thing should receive minimal weight until there are scientific secondary sources that discuss it -- many things in biology turn out not to be replicable by other groups (has happened many times in the stem cell field, for example, where big splashy news turned out to based on papers that were later retracted. We are WP:NOTNEWS especially with regard to biomedical science. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Jytdog. I looked all over for any coverage of this before creating the article; I couldn't find it in any logical place and was puzzled why nobody had reported it. Apparently that was because it was buried under titles where no one would think to look. "Nucleic acid analogue" is a horrible and inaccurate title; these are nucleic acids chemically, not something else that resembles a nucleic acid. "Synthetic DNA" is a much better title IMO. (I guess as long as it remained as a redirect, people would be able to find the information.) The article "Expanded genetic code" could be a target, except that it is written in science-ese too dense for the average reader. About a merge/redirect, I need to think about it and get input from additional people. Offhand I'm inclined to think we need an article under a WP:Common name. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks for talking. i agree that the whole suite of synthetic biology articles is too technically written and really needs to be knit together to make a coherent whole. i don't really care which way a merge would go but we have two completely overlapping articles now. actually Nucleic acid analogue cannot be merged into "synthetic DNA" because the "nucleic acid analogue" article talks about RNA too; it has to be the other way. This is pretty hardcore biology stuff and I don't know how much you know about biology. When you get down into detail like this (and this is indeed pretty drilled-down detail) the information is technical. I am sorry that you didn't find the content that was created last night, but again I am not sure how much you understood of what you were looking at... please don't be offended I am not trying to be a dick but competence does matter when dealing with technical stuff like this. I do agree that the current articles need to be written less technically! There is so much work to be done in many many of the biology articles and there are not nearly as many editors working on them as there on, say, video games. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to defend my competence, but just so you know: my degree is in chemistry and I have worked in the medical lab field for many years. I am not a molecular biologist, but someone with my background should have been able to find the information - and should be regarded as capable of writing about it. I believe Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in a way that would be understandable to an average college graduate, at least; if one needs a degree in the field to understand what the article is saying, then it needs to be rewritten. And if one needs ESP to find the information because of the article title that has been chosen, that is also not the way Wikipedia should work. I assure you I spent 20 minutes looking to see if anyone had written anything on this subject, before I decided to write an article. As you saw, I did find the article "Artificial gene synthesis," a fairly obvious target - and when even that hadn't been updated I decided no one had done anything.

For your part, I notice a very strong element of WP:OWNERSHIP when it comes to medical and scientific articles, and I hope that isn't going to be a barrier to our working together. I have also been a professional medical writer, rewriter and editor, so I could be of some help in reducing jargon and putting articles into shape where they could be read by a reasonably educated layperson - but not if someone like you feels entitled to overrule every decision and revert everything that doesn't meet your standards. (Might your attitude be part of the reason why there are "not nearly as many editors working on" biology articles? Give it some thought.)

Actually I see that you have already proposed the merger, since I didn't immediately agree to it, so there may not be much need for further discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog, MelanieN, Drbogdan: Hello, I'd like to read more on this development before I comment or edit the new entries. There are not many qualified editors in this subject so I really look forward to enjoy an easy-going collaboration. Two things: Do you have a copy or access to the whole article? This one is behind a paywall. The other thing is that I think that we should use both the WP:Common name and the technical name (to be determined); at the moment, my suggestion is to write it now as a section in Synthetic biology and later, create its own article with a technical descriptive name for precision. I agree in that "analogue" is incorrect, as the new nucleobases are not competing or substituting for an exiting one (they seem to be an expansion of the 4 natural nucleobases), and "expanded genome" should include genomic RNA, which is not quite this case. I hope I will be more useful in the days to come as I read the new literature and your current edits. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Melanie I apparently did insult you. Sorry about that. Hopefully we can indeed work together productively. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

to me, it is away out of bounds to cite someone's struck comment, as you did here with regard to my remarks above. hence, outta here. again sorry to have upset you and that we got off on a bad foot. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, was that the problem? OK, sorry. I have fixed it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello MelanieN, I want to acknowledge your skills at writing a very complex molecular biology article while using easy to understand terminology. Not an easy task on such subject; it takes guts and higher education. As you are aware, we will likely be doing either a merge or a move, but your great text will remain. I hope you don't mind this natural evolution of Wiki articles :-). Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. So you are a Biologist? Jim Carter ^(talk) 18:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No. My degree is in chemistry, but I have worked in the medical laboratory field for a long time. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to know that we have a good chemist with us :) Jim Carter ^(talk) 20:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are willing...

Not that I have made any secret of this issue/these issues, I would still like to discuss them with you without fear of retribution. If you are willing, can you email me? Thank you.... Dr. Matt PresidentistVB (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

PresidentistVB, whoever you are - I have no idea what you are talking about. You must have the wrong person. --MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(I minored in Chem at William & Mary, just FYI.) I saw you as a commentator/admin? in the IRS Scandal WP:NPOVNAMING section of the NPOV Noticeboard, and I thought I read where you stated the IRS (Scandal) title did not meet the NPOV requirements. I have a title I was hoping you would look at in order to render a decision. I think it, too, is biased. That's all... I thought I sent you an email. Apologies, if this Is still the wrong person. Thanks. Dr. Matt PresidentistVB (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK. You didn't send me an email because I don't have email enabled here. But you are welcome to join in the discussion, or to propose your alternate title here on my talk page if you prefer not to take part in the discussion. Or to forward your comments to someone else in the discussion who has email enabled. --MelanieN (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@MelanieN:: OK I am ready. How do I initiate a discussion re. WP:POVNAMING and WP:NPOVTITLE? Maybe you should find some time to look over everything first? The alternate title I propose for "John Punch (slave)" is either "John Punch (servant)" as was ruled in the 1640 case, which modern historians wish to anachronistically rewrite to mean the Council actually ruled him a slave, or simply "John Punch (colonist)" just as the WP article, "Anthony Johnson (colonist)" alive at the same time, is entitled. John Punch is "entitled" to the same convention, if not courtesy as his fellow black servant. Thanks. cc to WLRoss Dr. Matt (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To User:PresidentistVB, I have no interest in pursuing this myself. But if you want my opinion about how to go about this: the proper place to propose a title change is on the article's talk page, using the "requested move" format (see WP:RM for how to request a move). Then if you want you can post a brief note at the NPOV noticeboard, which is here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, asking people to come to the talk page and chime in on the move discussion. Here is how I worded the note; it should be neutral, not soliciting a particular opinion one way or the other. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. The talk page is a lost cause - an exercise in futility. There's a pit bull who guards it. (My new name comes from the source of this effort.) - Monkey Two (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anubrata Mandal

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Pio Rehpotsirc

i quit :-) how can i delete my user page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pio Rehpotsirc (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ask an admin, and they might do it for you. However, you'd have to be polite, and not edit poorly, as it's at their discretion. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 00:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

2011 end times prediction

One the wording of the lead, it is not necessarily "standard style for the lead sentence to begin by citing the article title in boldface and defining it". There are exceptions, please see WP:BEGIN.--ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, ukexpat. I see that it isn't absolutely required - especially in cases where the title is descriptive, as this one is. However, I think it is still best in most cases to define what the subject is / what the title means. I think the current version does that without being too awkward, but I'd be happy to look at other ways of handling it. Should we do that on the article's talk page rather than here? --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I am not sure what other ways there are other than the current version and my (slight) rewording.--ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Your intelligence

Since User:Omnedon has claimed that I've attacked your intelligence, I just want to say for the record that nothing I've ever thought much less said questioned or attacked your intelligence. I do wonder whether you read the Move Review statement since you claimed we were "rearguing the case", but this was not attacking nor questioning your intelligence. If you don't understand the issues raised at the move review, I'm sure it's due to a lack of reading and/or thinking about the issues raised in the statement, not due to a lack of intelligence. I hope you understand. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 17:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't take it as an insult. In fact I would not have responded to your comments at all. You can ask questions if you want, but I am not obligated to answer them - or to explain my reasons for not answering them. Thanks for the note. --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

See? A very intelligent response. We're in complete agreement on this. No obligation to answer. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 18:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the notification.

I'm going to take no action there, and instead defer to community processes.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

masterstrack.com

The validity of masterstrack.com is currently being questioned Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#masterstrack.com. And editor is accusing it of being an unreliable source. You have used masterstrack.com as a reference in your editing. I would like to invite your comment. Trackinfo (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

dpapa187

Hi Melanie. Thanks for your help in regards to the AG leventis article. So i created a new one, care to check it out? I think this is what you wanted? Bare with me never used wikipedia to work on. Need to get this out for the company though. So i'll need all the help possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dpapa187/A.G._Leventis_Nigeria_Plc

here's my draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpapa187 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll reply on your userpage. --MelanieN (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Albert Einstein". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Another dead

Another useful link is dead; It returns error 403 i.e. Account expired. Jim Carter ^(talk) 14:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason the snottywong tools all seem to be dead now. I couldn't find where anyone has created a tool to replace that one (the admin scoring tool) - which was controversial when he made it. Too bad because I found it useful. --MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any substitution; BTW soon I'm going to be blocked from editing. :'-( Jim Carter ^(talk) 14:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Why??????? MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have send a message to all the administrators present in Wikipedia. You can see the message in any administrators talkpage. I assumed good faith and was helping Anna Frodesiak for her proposal which has not been responded by any one. After I send that message to all the administrators about the proposal, they responded here (This discussion is going to be the largest discussion ever within few days) Now few of the administrators think that what I did was not correct and they felt I have spammed them. But honestly I don't have any such intension. Now a discussion is going on here and it is certain that I will end up as a blocked editor. But trust me I don't have any such intension.  :'-( Jim Carter ^(talk) 16:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't panic; you always over-react. You do not appear to be in any danger of being blocked. That discussion has already been closed, but I didn't see ANYONE saying that you should be blocked. I thought someone might suggest taking away your right to send mass messages, but that hasn't been suggested either. People do realize that you did it in good faith. The only comment at that discussion, before it was closed, was that you should be warned to restrict your use of the mass-message tool to the purpose for which you requested it, namely, the orphan project. And my personal suggestion would have been that before you sent this out, you should have asked Anna or some other experienced user whether it would be a good idea. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Over react, he he he... I'm Sulphuric acid :D... I'm afraid that only a quater of the administrators have responded till now maybe some one will raise a issue and block me. BTW have you mentioned your comments on the proposal? Actually I told about this at Anna's talk page but she haven't responded. Jim Carter ^(talk) 17:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Melanie, how are you? I have created an article yesterday and moved it to mainspace today. The article is here. Can you nominate it for DYK? The article is 1,890 characters. The hook is [...] that Ek Hi Raasta was directed and produced by the Dadasaheb Phalke Award winner B. R. Chopra?

infinite thanks. Jim Carter ^(talk) 17:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look but I am very busy offline today. I'll definitely do it before the deadline. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Just offhand: I don't see much in the article to establish the notability of this film. Just because the people involved in making it were notable, doesn't mean that the film itself was. Did it win any awards? Can you find any reviews? Any references in books or newspapers, documenting the importance of this film (rather than the people who made it)? I'll nominate the article for DYK, but in its current state, some people may doubt its notability. See WP:NFILM, and note that references do not have to be in English. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

On second thought: I took a look at some other Bollywood film articles, and none of them seem to bother with evidence of notability. So maybe WP:NFILM isn't enforced as a requirement. In that case don't bother with my suggestions above. I admit I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia standards for films. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

One other suggestion: In the lead sentence, provide a translation of "Ek Hi Raasta" as is usually done for films with non-English titles. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you know the film was one of the first black & white films in India (See the image of the film poster). The film was released more than 60 years ago. So it is not possible to get sources online or film review about a film which was released 6 decades earlier. But I'm happy atleast two websites talk about the film and it is enough to establish notability. And in India we generally not give much priority to films. So, the NFILM cannot enforce in this case. I have also translated. It means The only way; I mentioned it on the lead. Now you can nominate it. If anyone ask I will give them the same information. Jim Carter ^(talk) 16:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, it's nominated. It is here Template:Did you know nominations/Ek Hi Raasta (1956 film). I suggest you watchlist it. One comment about the hook: It might be a good idea to identify, in the hook, what kind of thing this actually is - as I notice many other hooks do. For example "...that the Bollywood film Ek Hi Raasta...." or "...that the Hindi film Ek Hi Raasta..." See what you think. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I watchlisted it. I have mentioned about Hindi film at the nom page. Please take a look. Actually this was not a bollywood film but a Indian Cinema because the film was released before Bollywood was created. And thank you very very very much for your help even when you are so busy. Jim Carter ^(talk) 15:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I moved "Hindi film" to before the name of the film; it reads better that way. I see that the hook has been challenged; apparently the issue is whether Chopra was producer/director or just director. That's something you'll have to deal with. I see the poster only lists him as director and doesn't list anyone as producer. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. ping I notice that the person who raised this objection has been in some disagreement with you before. It's IMPORTANT that you not respond to their comment on a personal level. You will be tempted to accuse him of following you, or picking on you, but don't. Just deal with the issue raised, and if necessary, correct your hook. I know how easy it can be, to let a content dispute become a personal battle, so I'm just advising you ahead of time: don't fall into that trap. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the above before seeing your response - which was fine. Apologies for the unnecessary advice. Your response was focused on his question, but it didn't really solve the problem. It's not enough for you to tell him that Chopra was the producer, or to point out how hard it can be to find sources. The hook MUST BE explicitly cited in the article, that's a rule. Otherwise we can't use it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind advice. Your advices are always helpful. I have solved the problem take a look now. I have added two reliable sources to support the hook as well as the release date. Thank you so much for your help and sorry for taking your time. Jim Carter ^(talk) 08:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The comment at the DyK nomination said it might be a more interesting hook if this was the FIRST film produced by Chopra. In fact that is exactly what IMDB says,[2], although IMDB is not considered a reliable source at Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with the hook the way you have it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Other references only says that the film was released in 1961 and the film was produced by Chopra but they are not saying that this was his first produced film. Now since IMDB is not reliable I can't add this information in the article. Jim Carter ^(talk) 07:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)