This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Great! & best of luck.

By weird coincidence (or maybe this is why you were looking at my page) I was just in San Diego for a day or so for the first time in over 20 years (I had the good fortune that someone sufficiently wanted my help for a few hours to fly me down from Seattle). Unsurprisingly, in my few free hours there, I visited a very standard tourist part of the city (Old Town). But, yes, the less affluent neighborhoods certainly deserve comparable coverage in Wikipedia (actually, even the article on Old Town is no great shakes). And, unless I'm mistaken, Hispanic San Diego is rather under-covered, even in terms of the 19th century. - Jmabel | Talk 02:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Journeyman Editor! Faaaaaaaan-CY! -- Rnickel ( talk) 18:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Say, since you're all fancified and official now, maybe you would consider taking a look at the page on Sharon Stone? Looking at it recently, at first glance, it appeared to me that nearly all of the recent edits have been vandalism and reversions, but I didn't have the time to give it the thorough investigation in needed. -- Rnickel ( talk) 19:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I guess I now know of another page that is on your watchlist! 0;-D I'll take a look at the Sharon Stone article (wait for it) after the Kite Festival! -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, tell you the truth I took a look at the article and it doesn't look to me like it needs a lot of attention. Yes, there has been vandalism but it has been quickly reverted, and there are 80 people who watch the page so I think it is well guarded. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi I am new San Diego but have a strong interest in expanding the relationship between local wikipedians an the cultural institutions of San Diego, especially in Balboa Park. To that end I am interested in providing access, support and recruitment efforts to the wikipedians through my connections to the major organizations in Balboa Park and San Diego.

I am also attending and supporting some Balboa Park museum staff to attend Wikimedia@MW2010 [1]in April, a workshop for exploring and developing policies that will enable museums to better contribute to and use Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. This meeting will be attended by Wikimedia Foundation Board members, staff, and Wikipedia editors as well museum professionals from across the country.

Prior to this meeting I would like to host a local meeting of wikipedians in Balboa Park to discuss the opportunities that might exist with the development of a closer relationship between existing wikipedians and museums.

Would this be something you would be interested in? -- Richcherry ( talk) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I added some comments to your post about this on my talk page [2] Richcherry ( talk) 00:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I probably should update the main Recruit page. As for USS Commodore (401B), at first it looked difficult but after further Googling now I've found some nifty bits that should be enough for a stubby article at least - so I might get that started tonight, feel free to chip in of course! :) And I think we have enough to have a "land ships" category now too. Most intriguing! - The Bushranger ( talk) 02:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've created a page for USS Commodore (401B), with all I could find - which honestly wasn't too much. Hopefully you can find some additional stuff to add to it to bring it up to DYK level in the next few days! :) - The Bushranger ( talk) 04:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's decidedly of the obscure, isn't it? But that's one thing that makes it so cool. Hopefully we'll find out her fate, at least. - The Bushranger ( talk) 14:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Too bad they dismantled it, but that's good to know. And if there's landsharks, we're gonna need a bigger boat! =P - The Bushranger ( talk) 04:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just found this: File:Uss recruit.jpg. According to the marker there were three landlocked training ships around that time. One of them is presumably Commodore...but where was the third? - The Bushranger _{Return fire} ^{Flank speed} 11:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm. It's possible, but the wording does make it sound like there was another ship, doesn't it? - The Bushranger _{Return fire} ^{Flank speed} 21:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I may have found something Just a single line in a Google search but I found this:

"...kinda like the LBS Neversail in Orlando. LBS = Land Based Ship..."

Hmmm! - The Bushranger _{Return fire} ^{Flank speed} 23:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, and another! "Our local Recruit was one of three such training ships built after the Second World War, according to Ryan. While the two others (the USS Bluejet in Orlando and the USS Marlinespike in Great Lakes, Illinois) eventually were dismantled, the USS Recruit has now been designated a California Registered Historical Landmark."... There's even a [3] from aboard the latter! - The Bushranger _{Return fire} ^{Flank speed} 23:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, all I can find about the Orlando 'ship' is that it existed. I'd want to find a bit more about it before writing anything! But I'll see if I can't shake anything loose from the research tree.

...wow. That is a big gap. Once I chop down a few more of my current to-do list, I just might take that one on. Thanks for finding it...or should I say, not-finding it?! :P - The Bushranger _{Return fire} ^{Flank speed} 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Come to the park so I can share with you some fun facts we have

hello Melanie I work for the Balboa park historical society at Balboa Park I specialize in the childrens tours something here that we cherish are some old photos we have of Maxfield the alledged time traveler with his flea circus We also have some photos of him and alpha and his good friend Harry May (the showman with Alpha the "robot" unfortunately these images are of very fragile existence and hanging on the wall at out museum so can not be copied at this time.

as for Maxfield Rubbish at the puppet theater that is a pierce which was commisioned by the friends of Balboa Park to share a bit of history with the kids in a playful way. The show is also supported by his great granddaughter who donated one of Maxfields original circus's which happens to be the one you have as a referance on this wiki page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.236.182 ( talk) 19:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

So why was there a Maxfield Rubbish who performed at Balboa in 2008? Methinks you are pulling Melanie's leg. Binksternet ( talk) 19:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Melanie, you don't know me, but I've seen your name around, so I've turned on a couple of buttons for your account. First, WP:ROLLBACK, which is pretty simple- an easy way to get rid of vandalism in a flash. (Just don't use it on good faith edits.) Second, WP:Reviewer, which is a flagged revisions thing that will keep other people from having to review your edits on flagged protected pages. (Which goes into trial on 15 June.) If you don't want either right, just let me know- I'll watch this page for a few days, and happy editing. Courcelles ( talk) 12:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Why you- simple. The reviewer flag is for anyone who has their head screwed on straight, and I've closed enough AfD's you've been involved in to know that you do. Rollback? Pretty much the same thing- with the various tools out there, anyone who knows what they're doing might as well have it, and you looked like you could use it well. Courcelles ( talk) 16:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Melanie, thanks for your stirling work keeping the mad spammers from adding gibberish to the flea circus page. Much appreciated. ( Flea Circus Director ( talk) 12:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for the update on Maxfield Rubbish, as far as I'm concerned a puppet circus is quite valid and could have been promoted as just that. However trying to promote such an event by writing about timetravellers in wikipedia is rather stupid. ( Flea Circus Director ( talk) 17:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

Hi MelanieN, I found your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bacio Divino interesting. I'm curious what winery you were referring to, and if the article was kept or deleted.

You may be interested in looking at the Wine Project's draft guideline Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics). As you said in your comment, criteria for inclusion have to be tough. However, they are not always clear and obvious regarding borderline cases, such as wineries that might be well known in their region but not outside of it. I and a few others made an attempt to interpret existing policies and guidelines in the context of wine topics. Some would say we set the bar too high, although everything seems to follow logically from existing policies and guidelines. Any improvements you might make, or suggest, would be most welcome. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Amatulic, thanks for your note. I did look at the notability criteria for wine, at your suggestion, and I concur with them. Forgive me, I hesitate to say what the other winery was (the one with the country's best-selling red), since it was a target of strong attack by one or two editors - one in particular who tried to prod it, deleted tons of information from it, even tried to delete the external link to the winery's own website as "linkspam", although WP policy is that the entity's own website should be included. The winery seemed to me to be clearly notable, having won several major national awards as well as being such a big seller, and I added citations to the article demonstrating same. I added them kind of late in the AfD discussion process, so many people didn't see the new citations, and the result of the AfD discussion was "no consensus" "default to keep". I have had that winery on my watchlist ever since, in case it comes under scrutiny again, but I don't want to call attention to it lest the deletionists renew their campaign! I have no connection with the winery except that I like their wine, but I would consider it a travesty to delete it.

I do find this subject interesting, and as a result of the discussion at Bacio Divino I have added the "wine-related deletion discussions" to my watchlist. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't consider myself a deletionist, but I do a fair amount of prodding and AfD listings of winery articles, sometimes as a means to spur improvement (as was the case with my nomination of Bacio Divino — I couldn't find anything but numerous trivial mentions in sources, but I think it may be possible to rescue, and the author seems motivated to do so), but most of my prods and AfDs are wineries that clearly fail the proposed WP:WINERY guideline.

I'd say making a best-selling red wine would qualify as notable enough to keep. It's the borderline cases that cause the most grief. If you missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards, that was a real donnybrook, with a lengthy debate, deletion, an even lengthier deletion review debate, and finally restoration. The WikiProject Wine membership was pretty unanimous about deleting it, but we lost that battle — due mostly to differences in interpretation of existing guidelines, underscoring the need for wine topics to have its own clear guidelines. The end of Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) includes an essay about the Valhalla incident. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 06:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I think I know which winery you mean (initials FaD). I had no involvement in it, but it really could use an assertion of notability in the lead. That would prevent anyone from questioning its notability or proposing it for deletion in the future. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 06:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, done, thanks for the suggestion. I had hesitated to do that before, because one of the other editors was so strongly down on anything that smacked of promotion.

I knew it wouldn't take much detective work to figure out which winery I was talking about; sorry to be so coy about it. For some reason that winery attracts enemies. Shortly after the AfD discussion closed as "no consensus", someone blanked the page and turned it into a redirect claiming it was done "per AfD". Someone else promptly reversed the redirect, so apparently I am not the only person keeping an eye on this article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting idea for notability. Rename it to WP:IWASTHERE to make the essay more general. Just remember that you will need to lay out if administrators get a pass at notability for these events. ;-) Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Never would have guessed that we already had something for WP:IWASTHERE! Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
Thanks for fixing refs at Rodney E. Slater. Looks like you're - amongst many other things - going through the unreferenced BLP back log as well. I actually find it rather interesting. Just one thing: just tried to prod Angelo Palma and got this message:

Article was created before March 18, 2010, and is thus ineligible for a BLP PROD.

Should we be ignoring that message? I ask because of your greater experience about this.
Thanks!-- Shirt58 ( talk) 09:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm actually going to contest the PROD for Denise Lutgens as it may not be an uncontroversial deletion candidate. She seems to be in rather good company (with the exception of the person who runs the website) here.-- Shirt58 ( talk) 09:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Melanie! Indeed I do intend to create that article. A pretty good approach to redlinks can be found at Wikipedia:Red Link. My own personal policy is to link virtually everything that I think is both relevant and worthy of an article (whether the actual target article exists or not). Many people remove red links purely on the basis that they lead to nowhere (yet). I have little idea why this occurs because Wikipedia's own guidelines encourage the opposite – perhaps people think Wikipedia has most notable things already covered at this stage? Often these removals cause a problem where perfectly valid new articles have zero incoming links and people like me have to rush around linking instances of the topic in other articles.

When you work in a niche area like I do then you become aware of the level of missing articles (some which are clearly notable to the lay reader). For example, John Kagwe (1996 AFC Half Marathon winner) is still waiting for his article even though he won the New York Marathon two years running! He's one of the biggest prize money winners ever, but still...for some reason he wasn't even redlinked on List of winners of the New York City Marathon. The winners list of the AFC Half Marathon alone is packed full of missing Olympians and major race winners.

In terms of the AFC Half Marathon DYK: go straight ahead! I'd recommend using the first one, or a variant on that theme. Be sure to add the relevant text to the article – I thought that info was a bit of a curio! SFB 16:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that the La Jolla Half Marathon gets less press coverage than I thought it did! Delinking... SFB 22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi i saw you work on San Diego articles. Im asking if you can help the Chula Vista article since as you know Chula Vista is right next to San Diego. I want to try to get it to FA for its centennial next year or atleast GA. If your not intersted its ok. Spongie555 ( talk) 03:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have actually never gotten a FA(they are hard to get) and GA(i nominated one but it failed). But the Chula Vista article has alot of problems like references and everything under the History section(which is also bad beacuse its a copy and paste from the Cities website) is little paragraphs. Im trying to get more people to help beacuse the article is in never bad shape. Spongie555 ( talk) 03:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you beacuse i really want to get this to FA for its Centennial so its on the front page for it or atleast make it good to look at with GA. Spongie555 ( talk) 04:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for beefing up that article! WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw you made the article for USS Recuit and got it to DYK. I saw this picture, [4], of a Military camp in Chula Vista during WWII called Camp Minnewawa. I thought you would maybe interested in creating it if you can find sources other then the picture. Spongie555 ( talk) 05:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The picture might be in public domain only if it was took by a army soilder or government employee. But it says unknown so I don't know. Maybe we could use fair use as it is only known picture of the camp. Spongie555 ( talk) 06:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also Camp Matthews article already exists. Spongie555 ( talk) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also would you be interested in helping me make a article for the Star-News? I already started making it in my Sandbox if you would like to help. I'm trying to go for DYK but can't find many sources to expand. Spongie555 ( talk) 01:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't not see that it was a CCC camp. For notability aslong as it follows the general Wikipedia:Notability rules it should be fine. Spongie555 ( talk) 02:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two article about CCC camps but they are National Register of Historical Places buildings which is different then this case. Also do we know where this camp was located in? I know it was in Otay Lakes but any location where there is a building now? Spongie555 ( talk) 04:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I found a source that talks about Camp Minnewawa but it says its in Jamul, [5], it could be a mistake by the author. Also i dont know if you would be interested in helping Operation Lemon Capital Centennial? Spongie555 ( talk) 03:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

New development on army bases in Chula Vista as there was an actual army base as proved by this link [6]. We could still make the CCC camp article and this. Spongie555 ( talk) 05:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Camp La Mesa does need an article too. Also the only articles about CCC camps are National Historical Register places. But we could make a list of CCC camps of San Diego County like you said. Spongie555 ( talk) 04:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there again. Guess what? I just found another "landship". Interesting! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your POV edits on Friends of Five Creeks. I learned a lot from how you handled it! If you wouldn't mind, could you take a look at Pacific_East_Mall and Cerrito_Creek? The same POV material is on those pages as well. m.cellophane ( talk) 17:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane

Hey Melanie, thanks for all your help with FFC, PEM, and Cerrito Creek. You have been very helpful. It's nice to see someone so interested in local topics, it seems you care about the San Diego Area as much as I do for the Bay Area! Let me know if you ever need any help or an extra pair of eyes or an opinion. Thisbites ( talk) 03:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Was it this Chabot Creek? This creek's springs remain large intact in the Oakland Hills, with some culverting, however, much of the foothills seems to have been culverted/channelized, and the flats are completely channelized. I used to play in Wildcat Creek, Strawberry Creek, and Schoolhouse Creek myself, with friends we would try and follow the creek all the way to its natural springs, we even found a few, pretty fun. I believe you have inspired me to start the article however, Chabot Creek. And that way I'll find everything that I can. Thisbites ( talk) 08:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that was the wrong Chabot, lol. The Museum of California and USGS usually have the best information, particularly their maps. Here is a map of the area. I will look into this further. Are you sure it is called Chabot Creek? Did you or only some people call it Chabot Creek? Was it known by other names? Did it not really have an official name? Was their signage?

So upon inspecting the Museum of California map and the USGS map its seems we have a few candidates. Which side of highway 24? What year did you play in the creek? The Broadway Branch seems to be the most obvious candiate but it was buried in 1850 according to the legend The rockridge branch seems to make it close to both College and Broadway but not Keith. The three steets don't really come together, Keith and Broadway touch College but not one another. If you could give me a more precise location I can figure it out. Was it in Berkeley city limits or Oakland city limits? Two other options may be Harwood/Claremont Creek bit it seems a bit out of the way. I believe the creek you knew as Chabot Creek is actually Temescal Creek, based on the fact that you believed it may have been covered by Highway 24. There are two small portions of the creek that are still running much the way you described the creeks fed into culverts. Since it is cut off from the upper Temescal Creek headwaters in the Oakland Hills and the other portion that empties into the Emeryville Crescent State Park and is close to Chabot Street I think this is it. Howevr Harwood/Claremont Creek has a small portion that is not culverted that passes along parallel to Chabot Street. Do you remember the name of the street it was on or that you lived on? Glad to have helped. And lol. Drove me nuts figuring it out. Love maps though and creeks/outdoors so can't complain. Thisbites ( talk) 09:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And I am still curious so I dug deeper. Does this bridge look familiar? If so it was pared with the following: "Actually the creek isn't here, and hasn't been for a long time. It's in a culvert half a block south. However when these two houses were built, the creek did run here, and the gully and bridges remain." - So it may now be a gully =( Thisbites ( talk) 10:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There was also this on the creeks description: "The Grandview Branch (also called Vicente Creek) drains the Claremont Heights area and joins the culvert near Chabot School. A religious college has a nice open creek segment in its large back yard. Harwood Creek (a.k.a. Claremont Creek) joins in from the north. Below there it's culverted to the outflow in Emeryville, except for one peculiarity: a fake creek segment near Claremont and Telegraph, where part of the flow is diverted above-ground. " Thisbites ( talk) 10:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning this page up---something that was long overdue. Well done! Best regards - Bruce D. Lightner ( talk) 19:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Melanie! I see that you and I have been editing pages with referrences to "Mira Mesa" and "Sorrento Mesa", and that you have just created a "Neighborhoods of San Diego" page for "Sorrento Mesa". I would like to discuss the use of both names with you, so that we do not end up redoing each other's work. Thanks! BariVaz ( talk) 18:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I've added the image to the Midway article. If you need assistance with others, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You've been doing some nice work on 2011 end times prediction; I particularly like the addition addressing what hour of the day it occurs. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll do what I can this weekend, but I do have, well, a life. We shall see! -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are doing well. Thank you for your interest in the GLAM project with Balboa Park. I've created a page for the collaboration, and invite you to please list your name at WP:GLAM/BP so we can determine what size group we're looking at. As this collaboration has just started, if you have any questions, comments, ideas, etc., please leave them on the project's talk page. Thank you! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that if we had a Robert F. Kennedy presidential campaign, 1968 it would be the perfect article to merge Boiler Room Girls into. Wait, we actually have that article? Well, I support a merge to that article, but feel it would not be right to merge it with the other two. I know it's been 10 months since you proposed the merger...just letting you know that I concur and support. hbdragon88 ( talk) 03:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've been working on creating WikiProject Stanford University. As a primary editor of the Stanford University article, I figured this might be relevant to you :) — Disavian ( ^talk/ _contribs) 05:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

border|180px|right Welcome to WikiProject Stanford University!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Members' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on Stanford-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join. Here are some suggested activities:

• Discuss with other members at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stanford University
• Cleanup some of the articles listed for work
• Have a look at the Article alerts

As a member it would be helpful if you would

• Add the project page to your watchlist

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome! .

For the purposes of full disclosure I want you to know I have nominated the actions of User:Purplebackpack89 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Abusive mass nominations for deletion and wikistalking of opponents to deletion Luciferwildcat ( talk) 08:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am unhappy that the investigation of this user got shut down so fast, he was trolling my talk page all day yesterday and dropped a ONE SOURCE flag on top of a piece I'm working on with a CONSTRUCTION banner clearly indicated, which is a clear manifestation of stalking behavior. I'm leaving this here per your ANI comment "he's never stalked me," to that effect. He has me and I don't have a place to make that clear due to ANI being shut down in record time in his case. Just so you know. Keep up the good work. Carrite ( talk) 19:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Carrite is canvassing you. Your talk page is not the place to discuss this. If you want to discuss this, please do so on his page, my page, or ANI Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Dude stop stalking him, he is clearly not talking to you at this moment. Carrite you can open a new ANI thread if you want, it is easy. You can ask me if you want info. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 22:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's perfectly acceptable. Just as it is perfectly acceptable to comment here. You clearly hold some grudge against me because you don't like earlier comments I made here Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, could you please let him know I started an ANI thread about his following me onto an AfD for an article I created? LuciferWildCat ( talk) 18:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you, I would be happy to collaborate, in fact I think all three of them deserve an article. Notwithstanding I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and thorough feedback on my talkpage, the politics here is surprising and convoluted. I gave you cred for a DYK nomination too by the way. If it hadn't been on a template in red I wouldn't have done it either, I really wish people left redlinks as it was the impetus I really needed to get in there and start it. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 02:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Melanie - I see you've been working on lighthouse-related articles and links. I was wondering your thoughts on the titles. Right now, they're Old Point Loma lighthouse and New Point Loma lighthouse. Do you think that "lighthouse" should be capitalized? Or, on the other hand, should we lowercase "old" and "new" when we use them in sentences (like, "The old Point Loma lighthouse...")? The way it is now, it seems like there is a lighthouse for "Old Point Loma", and another one for "New Point Loma". My inclination might be to capitalize "lighthouse" and treat it as a proper name. What do you think? Dohn joe ( talk) 00:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've just spent an hour or so repairing all the links that used to go to Point Loma Lighthouse (old) and Point Loma Light (new); I would hate to have to do it all again! (That is supposed to be one of the tasks involved in moving an article - to fix all the links in other articles so they go to the actual article instead of to a redirect page.) I'm also going to create redirects from "Old Point Loma Light" and "New Point Loma Light," since I notice the lighthouse junkies often refer to the structure as a "light" rather than a "lighthouse."

My thought is to leave the article titles as they are. I'm also inclined to capitalize the whole thing within articles, as "Old Point Loma Lighthouse", but I'm flexible on that; it may depend on the context. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Blame me for your hour of work, Melanie - I'm the one who moved them to their current titles, if you hadn't already checked that out. I should've paid more attention to the links at the time, so I apologize for that. And if you think that "[[Old Point Loma lighthouse|Old Point Loma Lighthouse]]" is the way to go, I'll go back through your contribs and re-fix stuff. Dohn joe ( talk) 00:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have since discovered that Old Point Loma Lighthouse (with a capital L) automatically directs to Old Point Loma lighthouse when typed into the search engine, even though it shows as a redlink when posted. Based on that, I doubt if it is worth the effort to change the capitalization in the article title. However, I do notice that most of the article titles do capitalize it, as in Ballast Point Light.

I would NOT change the name of our historic landmark to Old Point Loma Light even though most lighthouse articles use the "light" format. It's so universally known as the Old Point Loma Lighthouse, that I think that name falls under WP:Common usage. I thought about making Old Point Loma Light into a redirect page, but on second thought it seems unnecessary, since the correct name suggests itself in the search engine. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you 100% on keeping it "lighthouse" over "light". As for capitalizing, do we leave things are, now that you've gone to all the work, or is there something for me to do (other than apologize again for creating unnecessary work for you)? Dohn joe ( talk) 01:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave things as they are. And no apology necessary. We all go around cleaning up things that we find, don't we? I bet you have done it plenty. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Melanie. You were one of the few people who argued KEEP on a recent article I had started. Having discussed it in multiple forums, I think I have to say I was wrong on this-- the will of the crowd prefers the article be expunged from project.

Obviously, that turn of events has two important but conflicting consequence:

(1) It means someone or multiple someones should go back and re-review all the other articles I made, to see if they also merit deletion. In particular, Libby Schaaf & Jane Brunner seem inappropriate in light of what I now know based on my interactions with the community.

(2) I'm now entirely disinclined to actually go through and do the job myself.

My job title of "Editor of Wikipedia" impresses the ladies and all, but it's a job where nobody goes into it for the money. :) So, I'm gonna _try_ to cut back on the Wikipedia time, for a while at least, but addictive though it is.

Anyway, it needs to be independent anyway-- as is clear, I do not fully comprehend all the secret handshakes, so I'd be a poor judge of my other articles and whether they should be deleted or not.

Thank you for your help and kind words! -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 12:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello MelanieN; there's been some action recently on the "Southern Border" suite of articles in which your name has been coming up a lot. I thought you might like to be given the opporunity to comment in person. Articles with recent activity, deletions and undeletions include Southern Border and Southern Border (disambiguation), and you've been mentioned by name here and here. Cheers! -- Rnickel ( talk) 21:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My initial reaction is "oh, no, not that again!" I never did think the "southern border" concept had much merit, and I kind of lost track of which version of it was retained. But I'll take a look and see if I can figure out what is going on this time. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I am new to editing on wikipedia, so hopefully you can help me out.

The article seems to be a stand-alone article to me; I don't see why you think it should be deleted (merged). I find the consistency of Wikipedia to be a lot more helpful for learning about different subjects and groups than trying to track down information from many different websites, so it seems natural that notable college a cappella groups be included on Wikipedia.

The page was just recently created, and I see that reliable sources need to be incorporated as citations/references. What type of sources should be added? News stories/articles? Album reviews? Please let me know what you think. I am glad to work with you, so this article meets Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you! ~10mcleod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10mcleod ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the Frank Worth article. Being totally new at this, I really appreciate your help. I wanted to make sure a link to: http://giftarium.com/frank_worth_gallery.aspx was featured as these were officially selected by the Estate. Can provide certified documentation if needed to verify. This would be the official display of 'Frank Worth.' Can you help me properly communicate this? Thank you so much in advance! - Namlerep | Talk 12:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Could I get you to take a look at this article? LuciferWildCat ( talk) 13:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Lucifer, you certainly opened a hot one this time! I am trying to add some changes but it seems we keep getting in edit conflicts. Could you hold off for about ten minutes so I can put in some tidying up and some neutrality-balancing statements? Thanks.

Yes I most certainly did, I honestly don't look for it and did not think I would have run ins again after all the problems with PBP finally subsided and I was able to edit Richmond Medical Center and Oakland Medical Center without any bothers. However the condition it was in when I got there was extremely pro company and it didn't feel right for wikipedia's entry to be so pro company, people really trust us and I had read numerous articles on the topic already and saw a lot of misinformation and incorrect innuendos. Everytime I have been trying to edit the article I keep getting edit conflicts too, part of why I overhauled and resectioned it. Yes I will hold off, how bout you let me know when you are done? LuciferWildCat ( talk) 14:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It might be reasonable to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvage meat while you are seeking to calm things down in the slime arena, and to consider the article (related to this discussion) and give your opinion pro or con. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 14:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie I really appreciate and value your contributions at pink slime, I think you did an excellent job of summarizing a very difficult to describe product and process. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 01:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed all mention that contaminated meat is used and that fecal matter exposed meat is used has been removed and a lot more whitewashing, how can we fix this problem? LuciferWildCat ( talk) 21:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I left you a question at Talk:Pink slime#Loaded words. Thanks. Mojoworker ( talk) 19:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the peace making and advice, I have replied on my talk page. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 21:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts bringing the article up to encyclopedic standards. You seem to be very level headed. Wikfr ( talk) 18:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm avoiding being repetitive in RM discussions, but I want to address a couple of points you made directly to you. So I'm doing it here.

My initial !vote comment is about why the title of that article should remain as it is, and mine is not the only oppose vote that argues accordingly. You can disagree if you want, of course, but please don't act like nobody is discussing the issue at hand.

Besides, you raised the general argument: "Those who want to change the guideline should discuss it at a more appropriate place, not try to sneak in a change of the rules via an article talk page". That's the argument that is soundly refuted in my FAQ. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea to discuss away from the talk page of the article, which is already bloated with these endless arguments about the guideline. You may believe that your FAQ "soundly refutes" my point, and as I said, your argument may be convincing to you, but not to anyone else. In fact, "trying to sneak in a change of the rules via an article talk page" is exactly what you are trying to do. Or as you put it so well at your FAQ, you are "trying to subvert it (the guideline) one article at a time." Your argument about letting things happen "from the bottom up" or at the article level, as if this was some kind of grassroots process, is phony. There is nothing grassroots about one-article-at-a-time discussions like the one at Fort Worth; all the usual suspects are there throwing around all the usual arguments - once it got onto people's radar screens, which of course is the hope of some discussants - that the other side won't catch on that there is a discussion going on so that they can develop a one-sided "consensus". The individual article discussions alway turn out to be just a shadow of the general discussion, which always comes out the same way despite your efforts.

RE "My initial !vote comment is about why the title of that article should remain as it is, and mine is not the only oppose vote that argues accordingly. You can disagree if you want, of course, but please don't act like nobody is discussing the issue at hand.", please note that your initial !vote comment at the Fort Worth talk page says nothing at all about Fort Worth, and is instead a repetition of your usual arguments about disambiguation and precision. In other words this is not a bottom-up or article-specific process for you; it's just another round of your usual attempt to change the guideline. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your argument would be more persuasive if it were true that the U.S. city naming guideline had consensus support behind it, but it never has. While there has never been consensus to reverse it, whenever it has been directly discussed, it's always favored by only a small majority. In contrast, the compromise to allow cities on the AP list to not have state in the title was heavily supported by consensus.

You say the "usual suspects", but I don't recognize most of the others opposing this proposed move. Nor do I recognize the person who originally moved the article to Fort Worth. Do you? This is grass roots.

The statement in my !vote, "There is only one Fort Worth, and this can and should be clearly proclaimed by having the article's title be its undisambiguated name." is about Fort Worth. So is this statement: "Adding the state to the title obscures this fact and is adding unnecessary precision to the title." Note I'm referring to the (specific) title. The fact that the argument is based on general principles is, well, a good thing. That's what distinguishes it from a JDLI argument. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow made a conclusion which has no basis in the argument that Rush made. That she is clueless and simply is trying to make political points is not relevant to the article. With the number of people that have made comments about the incident it would be quite easy to fill up the article with people that have made what some could describe as novel interpretations of Rush's statements. Arzel ( talk) 05:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In the first place her comment obviously DOES a basis in Rush's arguments; he said over and over that the reason she couldn't afford contraception was because of the huge amount of sex she was having, clearly believing there was a connection between cost of contraception and frequency of sex, which Maddow pointed out is untrue. In the second place, whether or not you agree that this is what he meant, the reason you gave for deleting the comment was that what Maddow said "has been commented on by pretty much everyone", and that is simply not true. Maddow's quote is the only place in the article where this point is made. As such it is NOT a duplicate of what is already there and should remain. If you disagree let's discuss it on the talk page rather than our usertalk pages. -- MelanieN ( talk) 05:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Melanie; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read the talk pages FIRST before concluding what the extensively edited article needs. You are saying that the article does NOT have any discussion on the economics of contraception, or how Fluke came to her number, or how Limbaugh (and a huge number of non-sexist economists and columnists - pretty much across the board) disputed the number, nor how he then went down his infamous misogynistic path. You are absolutely right, it is NOT in there. What you fail to grasp (coming recently to the article) is that that is NOT because nobody thought of it, or that therefore, it, being "NOVEL" now needs to be included. Arzel is referring to the VOLUMES of commentary and consensus that has been, for legitimate editorial reasons (not because nobody thought of it) relegated to the Talk and prev pages. I don't have a problem with you expressing a desire to revisit old editorial consensus, if you have new arguments to add a general (and by necessity, NPOV) discussion on contraception, mandates, economics, etc., which were formerly IN the article. BUT!!!!! adding them is not novel.-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 13:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Please LISTEN to what I am saying on the talk page. None of this economics stuff has anything to do with the edit I am trying to make. I am not trying to make an economics argument. I am simply trying to add a one-sentence, well reported, therefore notable comment to the comments section. None of the other comments go into huge detail arguing about whether the comment is justified or not, and Maddow's shouldn't either. We simply need one sentence reporting what she said. Whether you think she is right or wrong is irrelevant. Whether you think Limbaugh was right or wrong is irrelevant. Just report it and move on. And for your part, please stop trying to change the talk page into a place to defend Limbaugh's points. As the notice at the top of the page says, This is not a forum for general discussion of Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. . -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Melanie; There is no one definition of what the RL-SF controversy IS. HOWEVER, over a month and a half of editing, a certain consensus has arisen that FOR THIS ARTICLE, it is pretty much just about sexist and misogynistic speech, not about the substantive issues of contraceptive mandates or insurance policy. Those have been in, and dilute the focus on the sexism. Sorry, but what is in and more importantly, what is out (since a WP article HAS to decide what to exclude) has to be determined by what consensus says the article is about, and what is allowed in then challenges that consensus. You are just being asked to read and understand what that is FIRST, and then consciously decide if you want that to change overall, or not. BUT you can't say that YOUR edit doesn't affect or have a relation to other edits.-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 01:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not about sexist and misogynistic speech, or contraception mandates, or insurance policy. It is about a notable contoversy involving two people. That's the title, and that's the subject. Quit trying to make it into some broader subject; those broader subjects are covered elsewhere. This page is about Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

PS. You are right that the condom coverage is not as clear as I may have implied, but it also is not as clear as you suggest. What the LAW says is clear, and must mean free condoms. What the administration implies when it lists examples and those lists do NOT include condoms seems to mean NO free condoms. It is a bit of a landmine for the Obama administration, since you would prescribe something for men but only TO women, would have to document the rationale for usage, are treating pregnancy as a disease that needs preferred protection, while STDs including AIDS are not. Yup, technically speaking, they aren't technically speaking. But WAY too much inside baseball for the article Talk page. -- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 02:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. I have yet to see any Reliable Source say so. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

An article you commented on for deletion before is under the chopping block again, you may want to express your opinion on this matter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Márquez (2nd nomination); also per our agreement I cannot inform Mr. purplebackback, would you be so kind as to inform him as well so that everyone is notified for the sake of fairness and transparency, and thank you. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 05:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I'm not going to inform PurpleBackPack. You are under no obligation to notify all participants in a previous discussion. Thanks for your interest in fairness and transparency, but I'm not going to open that can of worms. He is likely to find out about it anyhow - for instance if it is listed at the "California articles for deletion" which is how I find out about these things. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: I wish you wouldn't go screaming to the Rescue Committee every time one of your articles gets nominated. This article has been subjected to a lot of review and attempted rescue already. The Rescue Committee is more interested in stubs, or articles that have been neglected, or have no one interested in them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well we just disagree on that, and if it is meritorious and whether I created it or not I think that is a good place to bring attention to the matter. I have helped save other articles for years just because they were listed and never would have noticed before so I am not in any way trying to get other people to do my work for me, just feedback and a helping hand or opposing viewpoint. Also my issue was to inform every user, nevertheless I believe that if a user has been topic banned as I believe is the case, then should such a user not participate in the AfD? LuciferWildCat ( talk) 23:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that you replied [7] to PurpleBackPack. I thought you weren't going to do that. Especially when it is to just keep repeating the same point you have made over and over. I would urge you to back off before this becomes another slugfest. The goal of an AfD is to reach consensus; it's not to keep arguing for your own side. And it's CERTAINLY not to feel like you have to respond individually to every "delete" comment. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Right well, I have been diligent to only discuss content not character with regards to that. Moreover I thought it would have been impossible based on another agreement to not participate in Bay Area topics. It won't turn into a slugfest and I feel that I am engaging in a conversation with other peers in order to debate notability and feel I could win over Yaksar and improve the article based on that. I will take from this that I should screen any comments from my end for redundancies, will you however be discussing other editors superfluous comments with them as well? LuciferWildCat ( talk) 21:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Melanie - I stumbled across the Hugh Davies dab page, and noticed that the S.D. museum director wasn't on the list, but had a few references in other WP articles. As you're a S.D. and an AfD specialist, I was wondering if you thought he was notable enough to try to write an article on, and if so where you'd look for sources. Thanks! Dohn joe ( talk) 21:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to think about it. The Museum of Contemporary Art is not as high-profile as some other SD museums, but on the other hand he has been the director there for nearly 30 years.

Looking for significant coverage I found this which is only a blog but is in-depth about his activism. Searching Google News Archive for "Hugh Davies" plus "museum" brings a lot of hits but almost all of them are behind paywalls so it may be hard to find detail in them. Biographical information is here; that is a self-provided site, so it can be used to confirm the information but not to demonstrate notability. I see that the directorship is "endowed", that might help as a criterion under WP:PROFESSOR if it can be confirmed. Yes, here is confirmation.

I think it is worth a shot. Be sure to include in the lead paragraph that he is the "David C. Copley Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego". Something like this: Hugh Davies is an American art scholar, art curator and author. He is the David C. Copley Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego, a position he has held since 1983." In the body of the article, mention his books about Bacon and others, and that he was president of the Association of Art Museum Directors in 1998-9.

A good title might be Hugh Davies (museum director).

Good idea, and good luck! -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement and good starting place, Melanie - now all that's left is for me to follow through...! Dohn joe ( talk) 17:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Melanie. Thinking about returning to this idea, and ran across this WP article: Melissa Chiu. It seems like a well-written article, and I think I could source an article on Davies similarly. But I wanted to check with you again on notability. Do you think Chiu meets the notablility standards? If so, I think I could work up something for Davies. And if that ever happens, would you mind if I ran it by you? Thanks. Dohn joe ( talk) 07:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What the frigg? This evening, he accuses me of canvassing (while posting about the AfD on a bunch of other people's talk pages, wonder what he calls that), and then posts on my talk page. This has got to stop p b p 02:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have responded at User talk:Drmies where he has replicated this exact statement and will no doubt attempt to splinter it in another dozen places as yet another attempt at negative attention, this dude is obsessed with me and that is creepy. If he would just stop accosting my every edit he would never have to deal with me. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 05:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear MelanieN,

I just wanted to give you some words of appreciation for all your contributions at WP:AfD. I think it's great that you're providing such well–thought-out explanations and going to the work of finding additional sources for subjects of dubious notability. I'm also sorry if my recent !voting to keep an article I had nominated myself seemed strange to you; perhaps this practice isn't currently as common or well-understood as I had imagined, and so in the future I will endeavour to explicitly state when any contributions I make supersede the sentiments expressed in the nombination. — Psychonaut ( talk) 15:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Not strange at all, we've all changed our minds. Here is an example I'm not particularly proud of, where I discovered within 5 minutes of nominating something that I had been mistaken. The problem with that recent discussion - where you !voted "keep" without withdrawing or striking out your nomination - is that it kind of put you on both sides of the debate. And I'm not sure how it would be tallied when you have !votes to both delete and keep. Maybe you didn't realize that those bolded !votes are tallied up by bots and made into statistics; you can see your own record or anyone else's here. I don't know how the bot would handle a situation where the same person who nominated the article later !voted "keep" without withdrawing the nomination or striking out their earlier comments. (BTW other people did support your understanding that you can't withdraw the nomination if there are delete !votes; I didn't know that.) Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for all YOUR hard work at AfD. Clearing out the dead wood here is a necessary but thankless job. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.