Jump to content

User talk:MelanieN/archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, then you protect it to kick me from fixing the article (and it is not really the article, it is just talk page). Before you protect the page, make sure that there is really disruptive editing there.--Paisal Rahman (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

EFDI

Dear MelanieN, I am the author of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Forum_of_Deposit_Insurers. You deleted it on March 23. But why? There's no explanation. I do not see a reason for doing that. Looking forward to hearing from you, --Timmrotter (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Timmrotter! The reason for deleting it is given here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Forum of Deposit Insurers (2nd nomination). I am going to restore it so you can work to improve it. I'll explain in detail on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

NK Time

I undid your recent pending on Korea. The edit appears to be correct. Unfortunately my browser crashes every time I try to paste in anything (length of the article maybe?), so if you have time to add in that ref it would be super duper. TimothyJosephWood 14:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. I wasn't about to leave it when the person posting it seemed unclear which direction the time had changed, but the reference makes it clear. Looks like PC protection is working OK for that article? --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

your really good point in that food truck AfD

I agree with your well-stated position completely; my advocacy of a merge was based on Being Too Freaking Nice For My Own Good and not legitimate editorial criteria. This is intended 100 percent as middle-aged unironic appreciation and 0 percent as any kind of snarkiness; you reminded/taught me of a thing I need to be more cognizant of both on- and off-Wiki. Thank you so much, dear MelanieN! Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, JDL. About Being Too Freaking Nice For My Own Good: Trust me, there are a lot worse character traits that we deal with here on a daily basis. "Too Freaking Nice for Your Own Good" ought to be a barnstar! (Maybe one of the page stalkers will create one and award it to you.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

RMS Queen Mary

Good catch on RMS Queen Mary! I am working with the Shipwrecks Project to create missing "Shipwrecks and other incidents" navigation templates for years prior to 1989, and also to clean up the yearly "List of shipwrecks" articles and the articles on the ships they link to to make sure that wrecks and non-wreck incidents appear in all three (the ship article, the relevant shipwreck-and-other-incident-by-year navigation template, and the corresponding "List of shipwrecks" article for that year). In this case, "List of shipwrecks in 1949" had a sourced 1 January 1949 grounding of Queen Mary that was not mentioned in the RMS Queen Mary article, and I forgot to add the information and source to the article. It's there now, though, t what seems to me to be the most logical place. And thanks! Mdnavman (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)mdnavman

Wow, that sounds like a huge project! Thanks for adding the info to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is the sky blue?

Last edit was April. Editing is sparse, but almost none of edits pending changes were accepted. Probably vandalism; extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, George Ho. I have semi-protected it indefinitely. This is a redirect; there is no reason anyone should be editing it - or even having to watch it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

2014 Isla Vista killings

Even though one IP is blocked for disruptively blanking content, there has been still vandalism in other cases. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I extended PC for a year. I am also watching the page, so that if the blocked IPs return or another IP turns up, I can semi-protect the page. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

BLPPROD

Hi,

I notice you've been chiming in at some deletion policy discussions I've been involved in lately. You agreed with my BLPPROD removal in one case. Is this or is this not an invalid BLPPROD? The article clearly includes sources. User:Randykitty is insisting that it is valid and keeps reverting my removal. Adam9007 (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Looks like User:Sam Sailor solved the problem. He quite properly removed the Twitter reference (things like Twitter and Facebook are never acceptable), tagged it for having only IMDb (which is not a reliable source but still a source), and nominated it for deletion. I agree with you that the original BLPPROD tag was improper. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I was surprised to find that Randykitty's an administrator. Adam9007 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
So is Drmies, one of our most respected admins, but he also favors a "reliable" criterion for BLPPROD. It's not unusual for different administrators to have different interpretations of policy. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I don't see how anyone can misinterpret "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form". Seems crystal clear to me. Adam9007 (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, clearly it doesn't seem crystal clear to everyone. The guideline is confusing and contains contradictory-appearing statements, which can also appear crystal clear taken out of context (and possibly even taken in context). Both Randykitty and Drmies have been admins longer than I have, and I respect their interpretation and practice, even if my interpretation and practice are different. So should you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
We're all both right and wrong about deletion policy? Contradictory-appearing is not the same as contradictory. The apparent contradiction is explained and cleared up in the second paragraph; the placement requirement is no sources, not no reliable sources or no secondary sources. The removal requirement is a reliable source, if the placement was valid. I cannot see where the confusion is coming from. Adam9007 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's the way I read it too (having recently taken the time to study it closely). And I will continue to decline BLP-PROD if the article contains references. But you have to accept that a lot of Wikipedia involves individual interpretation. I'm sure you've heard of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia - kind of the founding principles here. One of them is this: "Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." A result of this is that different people may have different views, and it's rarely a matter of "this person is right and everyone should do it their way." Even different admins use different standards in deciding when to delete a page, when to block a user, when and for how long to protect a page, and so on. I am more conservative in interpretation than most, that's my personality, but that doesn't mean I am right or that I should go on a crusade to get everyone to be like me. You know this because you have come up against the same thing with regard to speedy deletion, particularly A7; the difference between "significance" and "notability" is open to interpretation, and most people here interpret A7 more broadly than you do. --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, let me clarify my reasoning here. The reason that is given at WP:BLPPROD for only placing the tag "if there are no sources in any form that name the subject" is that it "avoids the need for judgement calls about reliability of sources". I prefer to interpret this more restrictively, as Drmies said on his talk page. So if there is a reference, say, to a university page for an academic (which are usually accepted as reliable, albeit not independent), I won't use BLPPROD. If there's a reference to some obscure magazine, where people may disagree about whether it's a reliable source or nit, I equally won't BLPPROD it. IF, as was the case here, where there are two references, one to the subject's Twitter account, the other to IMDb, both sources that anybody who has been here more than a few months knows or should know are not reliable at all, I put a BLPPROD, because there is no judgement call involved. I guess that's goes against the letter of BLPPROD, but like Drmies I think that it follows the spirit. Now I could very bureaucratically follow the letter. That would mean not putting a BLPPROD tag but taking it to AFD. That takes time of multiple editors that have to participate in the debate and of another admin who has to close it. I think that's a waste of effort. In 95% of all cases, a BLPPROD does the job: it gives the article creator a whole week to come up with at least one independent source (and usually, if they're able to do that, they actually come up with more) or no sources come up and after a week some admin spends 30 seconds to check the article history and then delete it. Now what's better for the encyclopedia: following the letter of BLPPROD or the spirit? And, if you really are into determining how many angels can dance on a the head of a pin, I think that a good wikilawyer certainly could make a case that ignoring sources that don't need a judgement call is actually following the letter of BLPPROD. Thanks for listening. --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I'm still respected, and maybe there will be no respect a week or two from now--still, thank you Melanie. I think we disagreed on this PROD thing, and that's fine. But I've certainly been around the block once or twice. Adam9007, you've been here since Apr 16, 2015; almost exactly a year before that Randykitty was raised to the lofty ranks of adminship. He was co-nominated by me and DGG, who's even older than me (and much, much wiser). Yes, admins can disagree, and policy statements can be contradictory, and we should probably work on it, but in the end we should be able to have rational, common-sensical discussions and interpret policy and other guidelines in a way that promotes the goals of our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Drmies, nice to see you here! (Slumming?) And Randy, thanks for your comments. I understand why some people feel as you do, but maybe your explanation may help Adam to understand it. My feeling is, most Wikipedians realize that IMDb is considered unreliable, but many article creators don't - they believe in good faith that IMDb is a fine reference. And of course the "rules" do say the initial sources don't have to be reliable, they just have to be sources. The very fact that the template {{BLP IMDb-only refimprove|date=May 2016}} exists, shows that many people in this situation do NOT consign these articles to BLPPROD. You and others do, believing that the encyclopedia will be better off that way, and you may be right. For example, the article under discussion here will almost certainly fail AfD. Does that mean AfD was a waste of time? Maybe so - or maybe not, because it is harder to recreate an article after an AfD deletion as opposed to a PROD deletion. Sometimes WP:Process is important. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


@Randykitty: @Drmies: @MelanieN: I'm not sure about the spirit, but the letter of BLPPROD does say no sources at start with. Don't be surprised if someone declines it on that basis, and then it'll have to go though another week, either through normal PROD or at AfD. Speaking of spirits and letters, (with A7 at least) I notice some people go only for one; some go for the letter; some the spirit. There doesn't seem to be much balance. Take Cork Airport Hotel. It may pass the letter of A7, but not the spirit. The people at the AfD seem to be ignoring the spirit entirely (with the nominator posting excuses like it's "very likely to be deleted after an AfD" and branding me a "timewaster" on my talk page for removing such tags). Personally, I don't tag articles (either with CSD or with BLPPROD) unless I'm sure it meets both the spirit and the letter. The spirit may trump the letter, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the letter. Adam9007 (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: John C. McAdams

Just a clarification - I do not believe I have been "edit warring" here. "William Gosset" (contribs) appears to be yet another throwaway IP sockpuppet in the mix, as seems to be popping up on many pages lately. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply you were (although you really shouldn't make accusations without evidence, either in talk or in your edit summaries). I noticed the reverting and went to see what it was about. I found a different problem there. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's put it this way for evidence's sake:
Will that suffice for evidence? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
If you think someone is a sock/meat puppet and have evidence, take it to WP:SPI. I see that you did that once before with regard to this article, and your evidence was not convincing, but you could always try again with this new account. In the meantime, don't accuse people in edit summaries, and don't call it "vandalism" when someone disagrees with you on content. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see new SPI page, and let me know if you believe more evidence needs to be provided. Thanks. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, something is going on here. Whoever they are, they're playing games. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) You're listing John Pack Lambert as a possible sock??? Don't be ridiculous! He's been here since 2006 and has almost 300,000 edits. This kind of "everyone who disagrees with me must be a sockpuppet" attitude makes your SPI referrals likely to be dismissed out of hand. Likewise, you list a bunch of "stale" accounts that haven't edited in months - the checkusers won't bother with those. Anyhow, aren't many of those IPs the same ones you listed in your SPI request for Levasquez76? A request which did not impress the SPI people as having any validity? At the least you need to provide a link to the Levasquez SPI archive.
What I thought you would do, and what you should do if you want this to be taken seriously, is to request a new investigation of Levasquez as a possible sockmaster (that's how you connect it to the archive - read the instructions). You would ask about Gossett as a possible sock of Levasquez (isn't that what you are suggesting?), with diffs specifically comparing his edits to those of Levasquez. (Personally I find the connection unconvincing based on the diffs, but either request an investigation or drop your accusations.) Don't bother the SPI folks with stale, already-investigated-and-dismissed accounts, and don't drag in a longtime user who is obviously not anybody's sock and not running any socks. IMO until you learn what does and does not indicate a likely sock, you should not accuse people of socking - unless you want to be dragged to ANI for personal attacks. False accusations of socking are taken seriously there. --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
To make my position clearer: I don't see any evidence that Gossett is anybody's sock, and if I were you I would say "never mind" at your SPI request and quit accusing him. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
To clarify: I think Johnpacklambert is the likely sockmaster, given edit histories and his shown connection to and comments on McAdams' blog. Does that need to be refiled listing him as such? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I strongly advise against making that accusation, and I don't think it will stand up. Go ahead if you want, but watch out for a WP:BOOMERANG. My actual advice to you is to drop the whole thing. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Need advice

Hi. Long time no speak. I've run into an issue, and quite frankly, haven't the foggiest idea how to proceed. I created a small article on a French-born American actor, André Cheron (actor) last year. I used the diacritic accent for that's how AFI lists him, and the other two sources (although one is imdb, so not entirely reliable), also use the diacritic. Yesterday, another editor, without discussion, moved the page to without the diacritic, stating the reason, "subject died in the United States after spending his entire film career in Hollywood productions --- no indication he was ever billed using an accented given name".

My issue is that the former title is the correct one. All sources point to it, in fact AFI carefully points out that in some films he was billed without the accent, which means that in other films he was billed with it, which kind of makes the rationale for the page move incorrect. Normally, I would simply revert, and ask to begin a discussion until consensus is reached. However, that option is not available to me in this case. Since the other editor would also be unable to revert, any thoughts on how to proceed? Thanks in advance. Onel5969 TT me 14:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sam Sailor - it's difficult to ascertain simply from the google books (or other) search results. Take for example this source, which on the search engine is shown without the accent, but when you actually view the source, the accent is used. To me, the over-riding rationale is the AFI source, which, while not infallible, is still the best source for older film info. Using their methodology of using the main name of an actor, and then annotating the filmography with "credited as" with the variant. Onel5969 TT me 16:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for moving the page without a discussion, especially since the move violated my own tendency to hew as close as possible to the AFI Catalog. My original intention was to make Andre Cheron (actor) a redirect to André Cheron (actor), but after seeing the unaccented form of his name in the credits of 1938's Artists and Models Abroad, I decided to move the main title header. The great majority of Cheron's film appearances were unbilled and it is likely that the only film credits in which his name was accented would have been in the Hollywood-made French-language versions that cast him in more-prominent supporting roles, but that would still nullify the statement, "no indication he was ever billed using an accented given name". Taking into consideration a possible administrative view of this matter, subsequent discussions may be held at Talk:Andre Cheron (actor). As a point of interest, three related examinations of a topic similar to this one may be viewed at Talk:Malin Åkerman#Requested move (2007) as well as at Åkerman and Proposed Move (2010). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries, Roman Spinner - I appreciate the work you do on film articles (even if I don't always agree with you). I agree with you regarding the French versions of films; I haven't done all the research yet, but the contemporaneous sources I have checked seem to mirror the billing as in the AFI filmography. But no sense continuing to clog up MelanieN's talk page (and MelanieN, as far as I'm concerned, feel free to delete this entire thread). We can continue this on the article's talk page. Onel5969 TT me 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the understanding reply, Onel5969 and, since Wikipedia will be around for centuries, I am transferring this thread to Talk:Andre Cheron (actor) for historical reference in case the matter comes up again in future indefinite. In consultation with Sam Sailor and MelanieN, of course, since this is her talk page, we could request a speedy deletion of the André Cheron (actor) redirect, so that the main title could be moved back to its original form, if everyone agrees. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@Onel5969, Sam Sailor, and Roman Spinner: Thanks for the interesting thread, all, and sorry I was offline yesterday and missed it. I have no opinion about with-or-without the accent (in fact I recently lost a similar discussion at the article Julian Castro). But I would suggest that whatever title you wind up with, you leave the others as redirects. And I'd like to compliment all of you on the cordial and respectful way you are discussing this. I'll take a look at the moved discussion to see if you have reached a decision that needs admin help. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Darrell 'Big D' McNeil

I must of forgot to put the reason-I got rid of the Big D part as there was no page for Darrell McNeil and pages did link to that name also to make it easier. No clue why it was moved back to Big D. Wgolf (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put it back to Darrell McNeil. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blibdoolpoolp

While I think a redirect was certainly the correct close, could I perhaps ask you to restore the page history? There's potentially content worth merging, and, as there's a redirect anyway, I'm not sure I see the value of deletion. Thanks! (I'd do it myself, but I wouldn't want to be accused of wheel-warring.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The main reason I deleted it was that there were several !votes for "delete," and virtually all the information is already present in the target article. However, I didn't notice how extensive the article history was. My bad; I will restore it and then redirect it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
All fixed. Sorry about that, I'm not usually that quick with the TNT. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Um, sorry, here, but could I get you to verify that, by "several !votes for 'delete'", you actually counted? Because what I see is exactly two, counting the nom. Am I missing something here, or was your original close as delete actually against numerical consensus as well? Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
In reviewing I agree that the "delete" part of my close was not really justified by the discussion. Counting !votes there are two "delete", two "keep or redirect", and three "merge/redirect". Not my best close ever. --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dmitry Polyakov AfD

Hi! Thanks for closing the AfD for Dmitry Polyakov — I'd like to request userfication of the article so I can continue working on it, if that's all right :) Thanks! Goldenshimmer (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Gladly. You'll find it at User:Goldenshimmer/Dmitry Polyakov. Good luck! --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks! :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnny Downs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Here Come the Girls and What a Man. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Questions for you

On occasion, I've noted that a user will register more than one account and have the user pages for one forward to the other. One will be an abbreviated version, which I've seen used to reduce the number of characters in a signature.

To the point, User:ATS was registered in 2005, used for 15 edits on 25 June that year, and nothing in the 11 years since. Would I be allowed to take over the account for the purpose outlined above? If so, how would I go about it? 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Tiny, and thanks for the note. Usernames are way above my pay grade - only WP:Stewards and other global renamers can handle username issues. What you are trying to do is called usurpation of an existing username. As I read that page, it may not be possible to usurp the username ATS, since there are some edits attached to that name. But I don't really know what I am talking about so don't rely on that. You could post your request at the usurpation page, or you could ask at the talk page of someone who is a steward and is active at enwiki, for example MBisanz. Xeno also seems to be familiar with username issues. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Much obliged—and, you get paid?! 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Oops - you weren't supposed to know that. Yes, in fact our salaries got doubled this year. Twice zero is still... oh well. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Metal ions in life sciences

I believe that the deletion of this article has been premature. I had notified some other interested users about the possible deletion only yesterday and they have not had time to make a contribution to the debate. There is a clear split of opinion between scientists and non-scientists with scientists mostly against deletion.

As the author of the article I have been waiting for all opinions to be expressed before making a reasoned case against deletion. The basis of this case is that the editors of the two series of books have made an outstanding contribution to science by editing and producing more than 50 volumes of reviews. Indeed, Helmut Sigel, now emeritus professor at Basel University, was one of the founders of "bioinorganic chemistry" as a field of study. I believe that this is a notable achievement and deserves to be celebrated by an article in Wikipedia.

As a retired professor of chemistry myself, I recognise the significance of these reviews as of fundamental importance to the understanding of human, animal and plant biochemistry. That is why I created the article. I have been updating it for more than 5 years without any previous challenge. I do not understand why this challenge has arisen now and not previously. Petergans (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Petergans: I will be glad to restore the article as a draft in your private user space, if you wish, where you can work on it and improve it to try to meet the objections raised at the AfD discussion. As I interpret the discussion, the initial problem was the listing of the entire tables of contents of the books. That was removed, but the article still consists mainly of a listing of the volume titles. What should be the meat of the article is the section "historical development", but it is just an unsourced stub. The lack of independent sources (as opposed to primary sources like the books themselves, publisher websites, etc.) was a major concern of the discussants. You actually did list journal reviews of many individual volumes, but the discussants felt they were routine acknowledgments of publication rather than actual reviews. I think what people were looking for was some kind of independent commentary about the significance of the series (or both series, since you are including two series under this one title) as a whole.
About "waiting for all opinions to be expressed" before making your case for retention: the AfD discussion was relisted twice, so the discussion had already lasted three times as long as the usual discussion (3 weeks instead of the usual 1 week). And you had posted multiple comments, even if you apparently felt you hadn't yet made your "reasoned case". (BTW "notifying other interested users" sounds like canvassing which is a no-no. However, you might ask those same interested users to help you develop a revised article that will pass muster the next time.)
Here's a possible different approach: You say that part of your motivation here is to recognize the work of Helmut Sigel. Maybe you should write an article about him, rather than about this series? I see from Google Scholar that he wrote (co-wrote) several highly cited handbooks, not just this series. If you can find cited biographical information about him (his university website might be enough), I think he would easily meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC - even better if you could find an actual description of him as a founder of the field of bioinorganic chemistry. And you could list this series and his other books in the biographical article, with a redirect from the series title to lead people there.
In light of these comments, do you want me to restore the article to your user space so you can work on it, or would you rather start an article about Professor Sigel from scratch? Of course, there is nothing to prevent you from doing both. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your constructive response. An article on Helmut Sigel is certainly a possibility. I have known him professionally for many years, but I am a chemist, not a biographer, so it would be a struggle to do it. Petergans (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to be a "writer"; you can just follow the format of similar articles. I have written quite a few biographies of scientists and physicians myself, which you could use as a kind of template or example of how to organize such an article. Examples: M. Brian Maple, John K. Frost, C. Lockard Conley, John H. Yardley. As you can see the layout is pretty straightforward. But it's up to you if you want to try this or not. --MelanieN (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
And here's an example of a very simple, basic biography: Robert Edmund Edwards.--MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

List of something-or-other in Europe

Please see this thread at ANI. Since you opened the RfC (in July 2015) do you have any comment on the decisiveness of the result? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Dubious attitude

You have to read that the page Hungarians have an observation of an administrator who claimed the page has too many pictures. Also you have to notice that the info cassette contain a picture that is not admitted according to general rules. If you admit this kind of picture in the info cassette it is a discrimination. Your actions show a dubious attitude. If administrators contradict administrators, Wiki is only a propaganda encyclopedia and you are a bad example. This is why Wikipedia is a dubious source as many journals wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.95.134 (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the fact that I semi-protected the article Hungarians. You should be glad I protected it. You were the reason I did so. You kept deleting a picture; you did it five times in a row. You could have been blocked for edit warring. In the future, if you make an edit and someone reverts it, do not keep making the same edit. Instead, go to the article's talk page and discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MelanieN/archive_23&oldid=1078049425"