Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:34, 28 January 2013

Archives

January 2010 to June 2012. July to December 2012.

Thanks

		The BLP Barnstar
		For providing references to many of the old articles at the back of the Unreferenced BLPs backlog. Your contributions in this area are much appreciated!  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicely Done

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For reversing my recent prod of Samuel Armacost, you found some decent sources after I failed to do so! Nuujinn (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For trying to save Del Cerro, San Diego, California from sure deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not as good as your own article but...

		The Press Barnstar
		Awarded for the recognition granted to you by the San Diego media, which took note of your hard work in keeping local pol's biographies NPOV XinJeisan (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for spelling out Wiki-abbreviations (like BLP) for readers who haven't a clue what they mean. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

San Diego

		The Original Barnstar
		To MelanieN, on the occasion of San Diego reaching GA! -SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		To MelanieN, for well-considered arguments at AfD. Axl ¤ 18:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes. Axl ¤ 18:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Really this should be the barnstar of lost causes, but thank you for your efforts in trying to solve the problem that is Purplebackpack and Luciferwildcat. Spartaz 07:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Spartaz here. You deserve a lot of credit, no matter the outcome. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Much

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For all your work on Kit Carson Park and saving it from deletion. EdWitt (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Your background enumeration, presentation, and reasoning in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (2nd nomination) is exactly what every nomination should have. The fact that you made the effort to DELSORT it appropriately is the icing on the cake. The encyclopedia needs more deletion nominations this well-constructed. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For kindness to a new editor Peridon (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

And thanks back to you - it was a tag-team effort! and I think well worth while. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for working with Hanky to improve the Munzee article! SarahStierch (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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 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:

Misplaced Pages: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)

RfC on US city names

The discussion was closed as "maintain status quo (option B)". Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Metcalfe's Food Company

Hi there I hope you are well. I was given your contact details by peridon. He told me you would be able to help me edit an Article. I wrote a new article about a Food Company called Metcalfe's Food Company . Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Sgarcia113 Can you please have a look at it and review it so it can be rescued frome deletion? I am new to wikipedia so I really appreciate your help with this! --sgarcia113 (User talk:sgarcia113) 01:11, 07 January 2013 (UTC) Best

WP:FOC

In your article and policy talk page comments, please adhere to WP:FOC (which is on the WP:DR policy page):

Focus on article content, not on editor conduct. Misplaced Pages is built upon the principle of collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to our community. Bringing up conduct often leads to painful digressions and misunderstandings.

It can be difficult to focus on content if other editors appear to be uncivil or stubborn. Stay cool! It is never to your benefit to respond in kind, which will only serve to derail the discussion. When it becomes too difficult or exhausting to maintain a civil discussion based on content, you should seriously consider going to an appropriate dispute resolution venue detailed below.

I bring your attention to this because of your focus on editor conduct (mine) rather than content, here, where you write: "What I should have said was, nobody EXCEPT BORN2CYCLE wants to see it reopened so soon." Please edit this comment so that it complies with WP:FOC. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that it's inappropriate to make comments about editors there. Do you deny that your comment there is in violation of WP:FOC? Do I really need to ask for admin assistance?

By the way, as to the content of your statement, all that previous discussion demonstrated (again) was that at best there was no consensus about whether US place names should be predisambiguated (and so status quo was favored), and there was still a lot of misunderstanding and lack of appreciation for how and why avoiding predisambiguation improves WP. This proposal is both simpler and broader, making understanding and appreciation much more likely. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, only 18 out of 58 contributors (31%) wanted to follow a policy of "no unnecessary disambiguation" (i.e., state name only when necessary for DAB), while 40 out of 58 (69%) wanted at least some U.S. cities to add the state name regardless of need for disambiguation. That seems like a pretty clear consensus - more than 2 to 1 - that US cities should have an exception to the "disambiguate only when necessary" rule. As for the current discussion, I can see no purpose for it, except to reopen the USPLACE discussion, which was closed after exhaustive (and exhausting) debate only 6 weeks ago. Isn't there some kind of statute of limitations on RFCs? --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Alternatively, 38 out of 58 (65%) wanted some kind of change, and only 20 out of 58 (34%) supported the status quo. This is an artifact of the RFC being so complicated. We were in the middle of discussing how to formulate an RFC when this one was poorly and prematurely (IMHO) proposed. This one won't have any such problems. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but sorry. The fact was that fewer than a third of discussants wanted your preferred policy; the other two thirds wanted SOME exceptions for US cities. In any case, isn't your preferred policy - "no unnecessary disambiguation" - already the case for most or all countries, with an exception for the US? Thus, isn't the (rather unclear) proposal for a new RFC merely another attempt to eliminate the exception for US cities? That's why I asked the original poster for some non-US examples of what they are talking about. If they can't supply any, then there is nothing new about this proposal; it's simply another attempt to eliminate the exception for US cities, and as I said, I think there should be some kind of grace period before we have to thrash that out again. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to restrict the regulars to some kind of grace period, but it's unfair to impose the restriction on someone previously uninvolved, which, so far as I can tell, the proposer of this RFC is.

That previously uninvolved editors like this one keep bringing up the same point (on individual articles as well as on the guideline talk page) over and over year after year after year is in and of itself evidence of there being an obvious and inherent problem with the current approach. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's never going to be unanimous, and it doesn't have to be; this is not a jury trial. After any election or other decision point, there are always people who voted for the losing candidate and people who didn't vote. That doesn't mean they can keep getting do-overs. At some point it becomes necessary to accept a decision, even if one didn't agree with it, and move on. Most people realize this. The alternative is constant stalemate with endless, unproductive rehashing of the same points.
Think about this: Two thirds of the people in that discussion wanted the state added in at least some cases; 26% wanted the state added in ALL cases, no exceptions. That means that if you got your way and eliminated all the "unnecessary" state names, there would constantly be people trying to add the state, probably twice as often as happens now with people trying to remove it. It would be an even more "obvious and inherent problem" than it is now.
I seriously do ask you: please allow yourself to accept the majority decision on this issue and let us move on to more productive work. I keep quoting the Misplaced Pages policy (not just a guideline but policy, "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow") that says "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Misplaced Pages." I wish you could find it in you to follow this policy. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the La Jolla page

Hi Melanie,

You're very involved on the La Jolla Misplaced Pages page, and I'd just like to thank you for all your positive contributions. I'm not a very regular wiki editor as you can probably tell, though I did write the original "antisemitism" section on that page under a different IP. I appreciate your efforts in helping edit that section and protecting the page as a whole from vandalism. I would most like to thank you for helping to revert the protection on the page so that everyday users can edit it again. It's very frustrating when an occasional user is prohibited from adding constructive content because of the vandalism of a select few others, and against the collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages as a whole, in my opinion.

Keep up the good work! 69.181.233.225 (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for advice on User:Nonsenseferret/Tom Hanlin

I wonder if I might seek your advice concerning this draft article - I am not sure whether it is notable enough to merit improvement/submission, and if it is notable I'm not sure how best to improve it - any pointers gratefully received. ---- _nonsense ferret 22:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to cast an eye over this article for me, it is much appreciated. I will consider your comments carefully, and particularly try to find more biographical details - I will keep my fingers crossed for the official review. Thanks again ---- _nonsense ferret 22:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo

Hi there! I cordially invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive ediing at WT:PLACE RfC proposal

Melanie, this is from the first line of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing:

Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing ... disrupts progress towards ... building the encyclopedia.

Below is a copy/paste of all of your contributions to the current RfC/proposal at WT:PLACE. I am bringing them to your attention because of the alarmingly low presence of constructive comments conducive to building the encyclopedia among them. I also want to bring attention to the high ratio of focus on editors rather than focus on content (see WP:FOC). In fact, almost none of the comments address the substance of the proposal at all, or discuss the pros and cons in a substantive manner. You are under no obligation to bring meaningful contributions to the various discussions going on there, of course, but I request you refrain from all commentary if your goal is not to make productive contribution conducive to developing consensus. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as U.S. cities are concerned, there was a very extensive RFC within the last couple of months, with more than 50 participants (see above). It was closed as "maintain the status quo" - that is, add the state to all U.S. cities (Tacoma, Washington) except for named exceptions like Seattle. So the situation with U.S. cities is pretty well settled and I doubt if anyone wants to see it reopened so soon. For most other countries I believe it already follows the convention you are suggesting, namely, to add the state/province/départment/whatever only if needed for disambiguation. Maybe you could restate your request for comment to make that clearer, with non-U.S. examples of what you think needs to be changed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Above I said "So the situation with U.S. cities is pretty well settled and I doubt if anyone wants to see it reopened so soon." What I should have said was, nobody EXCEPT BORN2CYCLE wants to see it reopened so soon. My reaction, and the reaction I suspect of most here is, we should accept the decision above regarding USPLACE, which was based on a very extensive discussion very recently, and spare us from another million words of repetitious debate on the subject. Accept the fact that "disambiguate only when necessary" is already the policy for most of the world, accept the consensus after multiple discussions that USPLACE is an exception, WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. PLEASE. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@Ezhiki, isn't "disambiguate only if necessary" ALREADY the guideline for most countries? My understanding is that it is, with USPLACE being a conscious exception. In other words, this RfC proposal is merely restating what is already the situation for most countries, while not allowing for the USPLACE exception. (I think the original proposer was laboring under a misunderstanding; they seemed to think "add the state" was the current rule for "places across the world", with Canada being an exception.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Since Born2cycle has made clear that he regards this proposal as specifically about overturning USPLACE, I strongly oppose it. The USPLACE issue was decided just a few weeks ago and should not be reopened. I have proposed another wording for an RfC below, if anyone wants to comment on it; otherwise let's just let it die. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, thanks for crediting me with influence far beyond reality. (Am I notable yet?) But your math seems a little off. In this current discussion, nine ten (I missed one oppose added way at the bottom) people have formally voiced opposition to the proposal to eliminate USPLACE, seven in favor. I promise you those nine ten people were not all me under different names! In the previous (just archived) discussion, 58 people took part, which is a good big sample by Misplaced Pages standards; only 18 of them favored a "no unnecessary disambiguation" approach to the names of US cities, while 40 favored at least some exceptions; out of those, a plurality of 20 supported the current convention. Furthermore, none of these discussions took part in "some wikiproject" or were determined by a "handful" of "locals" in a "little fiefdom"; the discussions have been here, where titles are discussed, and with lengthy (the previous discussion ran to 200,000 bytes), policy-based arguments pro and con, by both Americans and non-Americans. As for your claim that I am the one "demanding some magical special exception": the current convention has been in place for many years, and it was worked out long before I became involved in the discussion. I defend it; so do many others. If you want to participate in this discussion, that's fine, but please don't do it by dismissing all previous discussion out of hand - or pretending that there's only a single person who disagrees with your perspective. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kauffner, rather than citing a sample of who-knows-what random Google hits, the community has chosen to follow an ACTUAL Reliable Source, namely the Associated Press guideline, which is followed by virtually all newspapers (i.e. Reliable Sources) in the U.S. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

To further clarify, nobody has suggested that the "city, state" format used for US cities should be applied anywhere else in the world. I completely agree with you that it should apply only to cities in the US, as explained here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC) "have offered nothing other than pointing out the previous RfC." You're darn right we have chosen not to rehash the 200,000-byte argument that was just closed with a 2-to-1 opinion AGAINST your disambiguate-only-when-necessary policy. You are absolutely right we have chosen not to respond once again to your repetitious arguments, having responded at great length with policy-supported arguments just last month. There really ought to be a statute of limitations saying that a thoroughly-discussed RfC proposal should not come before the community again until after the passage of some reasonable amount of time - say 6 months, or a year. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Perfect description of what is going on here. Chapter and verse. Achieving a new benchmark in this subsection, where it is being proposed that the current discussion should be closed against consensus because... well, just because. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kauffner, I do wish you would read the previous discussion. One of the options offered at that discussion was to use the New York Times list of exceptions instead of the AP list (thus adding Nashville to the exceptions), but that option got only two !votes. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Don't fall for it, folks. These two latest section headings, based on points we have responded to numerous times in the past, are not worth replying to. They are just an attempt to roil the pot, to gin up discussion/argument, to get another 200,000-byte discussion going and thus "prove" that the issue is "disruptive". Plus, to try to create the impression that the result of this RfC is still in doubt. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that when Born2cycle cites WP:Status quo stonewalling, he is citing an essay written by himself. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle, you are really being insufferable here. Please recall that you were warned by ArbCom less than a year ago: "Born2cycle warned: 5) Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." Also please recall that the same month you came close to being topic-banned from move discussions. You might want to reread the promises you made there to avoid being topic-banned. --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The "previously uninvolved editor" made the proposal and vanished. They have not been here to respond to comments, specifically to my comment that their proposal is based on a misunderstanding of the current situation. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion went way beyond "no consensus to change". In fact, there was a clear consensus AGAINST moving to a "no unnecessary disambiguation" rule for US cities. Out of the 58 people who posted opinions there, only 18 (31%) expressed a preference for the method proposed by this RfC and endlessly endorsed by B2C, namely, "no unnecessary disambiguation in US placenames". The remaining 69% of editors wanted at least some "unnecessary disambiguation" for US cities. A plurality, 34%, wanted to keep the existing "compromise" position of listing the state name except for 40 named cities where the state name is omitted. A significant minority, 26%, wanted to disambiguate ALL US city names, no exceptions. A few (8%) wanted a larger list of cities where the the state name is omitted. The bottom line is that the consensus, by more than 2 to 1, was that US city names should NOT follow the "no unnecessary disambiguation" rule. It's hard to see what B2C would accept as consensus, if 2 to 1 is not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So let's reword it (after all, the proposal as made doesn't make any sense (striking as unduly harsh) and reflects an incorrect understanding of the actual situation). How about this: RfC to affirm that the names of cities should be listed in the most concise way, without adding unnecessary disambiguation, except when a different rule has been formally agreed to for a particular country. (I put it that way because I don't know if there are other countries that have stated a preference to add the state/province/départment to the city name, or if it is just the U.S.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It certainly does. The proposal states "I propose that the common naming convention for places across the world be changed. It has already been done for Canadian places at WP:CAN, but for other countries, the common naming consensus should be adjusted to remove the state, province, island name from the end if possible, because it is an unnecessary disambiguation, unless it is not a primary term." But this would not be a change, it is already the current understanding; the "unnecessary disambiguation" has already been removed from countries other than the U.S. The proposer then goes on to give US cities as examples, thus wanting to reopen USPLACE, which is the reason for the "strong oppose" !votes to the proposal as stated. If the proposer has examples from countries other than the US where this policy would represent a change, let them show an example. Without such examples, it is asking for a reaffirmation of the current situation, and the only "change" would be to eliminate the specific exception of USPLACE. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, yes, the original proposal here IS an attempt to overturn the recent discussion and reopen discussion on USPLACE, and you are supporting it on that basis. Thank you for confirming that. In that case, I will go back up to that proposal and make my opposition clear. I'm disappointed that you are unable to accept the result of the previous discussion, but there WAS a discussion and consensus was reached (whether or not you agree with it), and the clear feeling here is that people don't want to reopen it. IMO it would have been decent to allow for some kind of grace period (at least longer than six weeks?) before attempting to overturn that decision. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C, it is totally inappropriate for you to dismiss as "silly" the considered and policy-based arguments of all those who don't share your interpretation of the naming conventions. Sure, the controversy over how to spell yogurt was "silly" (or rather "lame"; I just noticed that it is a featured discussion at Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars#Yoghurt or yogurt), which didn't stop you from pursuing it single-mindedly for eight years, and doesn't stop you now from repeated gloating over the fact that you finally got your way in that case. And that controversy was not "resolved finally and permanently" as you claim; in fact there is a debate about it going on right now, as you well know. But the issue here is not a argument about how to spell "yogurt". It is about how to name thousands of cities, where millions of people live. Dozens of editors have stated positions in opposition to yours, offering reasoned arguments and citing policy, but you dismiss them all as "silly", while you continue your crusade. (Interesting that you couldn't recognize yourself in the quote cited above, about those who demand a "foolish consistency".) Your attitude that only you are right, and that this issue will only be settled when it is done your way, and that you will continue hammering on it for years and years until that happens - these attitudes on your part are not in accord with Misplaced Pages traditions and are not beneficial to the project. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is being silly, for example, I suspect they don't realize it. That's the most backhanded "apology" I ever heard. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only PART of the Misplaced Pages way, and not the most important part. According to the nutshell summary at Misplaced Pages:Article titles, "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." USPLACE is based on those criteria, particularly the Reliable Source criterion. You seem to believe that the MOST IMPORTANT criterion is "no unnecessary disambiguation", but that opinion is not supported by that page, or by WP usage generally. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If in fact there is any implication of priority of goals at WP:Article titles, it would be that the most important are listed in the nutshell. That nutshell summary states "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." In other words, the highest priority goals are recognizability, lack of ambiguity, and consistency with Reliable Sources. See anything in there to suggest that "concision" is a top priority? Neither do I. In fact, concision clearly takes second place to the three listed there. One reason why so many editors support USPLACE, is because it meets these three objectives. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The existence of this discussion is disrespectful of the previous discussion, a mere month ago, in which 58 people !voted and a 2:1 consensus was reached. --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you all think of my suggestion above that there ought to be some kind of "statute of limitations," so that after a thorough discussion of an issue, the same issue can't be brought before the community again until after a decent time interval - say 12 months, or at least 6 months? This discussion, coming so soon after the massive previous discussion and so repetitive of it, is a complete violation of the guideline at WP:TITLE which says "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Misplaced Pages." --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I expressed willingness to consider this specific proposal as a GENERAL rule, with provision for consensus-based exceptions such as USPLACE. I even proposed that as a possible wording, but nobody followed up on it. You clearly intend that this "new" proposal should be applied universally, without exceptions. That is what takes this out of the realm of a new idea; it isn't. Your arguments here (all of which you have made many times before, including in the just-closed discussion) reduce it to just another in a long line of attempts on your part to overturn USPLACE (which is the only exception you seem to care about; there are other place-name conventions that involve adding a state, province, prefecture, etc. that never seem to cause any problems or attract your notice). --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)