User talk:MelanieN/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Sincere request

Hi Melanie, I had created a page Bhakti Arora Manekar which you deleted. Requesting you to please let me know the reason. I had followed all the Wikipedia guidelines while creating the article. I do not have any backup of that content, not a pro at writing articles :) It would be great if you could help me with what do I need to edit to keep the page alive and also share the backup of the content. I am unable to find it in my history. :( Thanks in advance. Suribbles (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Suribbles, and thanks for your note. The reason why your article was deleted is given here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakti Arora Manekar. Basically, people felt that the person did not meet Wikipedia's criteria for having an article here. The criteria can be found at WP:General notability guideline. Basically, the requirement is that the person has been written about in reliable publications such as newspapers. You did include references, but they are mostly for things like Facebook which Wikipedia does not accept as a source (see WP:Reliable source. The people in the discussion said they could not find any coverage in a search, and that "there isn't a Wikipedia page for every winner and runner-up of Masterchef for every country". However, here is what I can do: I can restore the page in your own personal user space (not as part of the encyclopedia). There you can try to improve the article, such as by adding more references that meet the Reliable Source standard. You should also learn how to cite references properly, see WP:Referencing for beginners. When you think you have the article improved enough, let me know and I will take a look at it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is available for you to work on at User:Suribbles/Bhakti Arora Manekar. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie, I agree to all your points. Actually there are a lot of media references which I didnt put thinking they be unnecessary to quote. I will try and put those and make the article better. I agree that not all winnners/contestants have a Wikipedia article for them but I would want at least the first three positions for every season should have an article. In India, the web presence for such things are really low and I want to work towards that, thanks for answering my queries and restoring the article to my account, I will let you know once I have edited it. I would like to go ahead and create other articles for the winners of previous seasons too. Thanks again. Suribbles (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

AfD closures

You may want to try using this script for closing AfD discussions. it may be faster than the current script you are using. sst✈^(discuss) 10:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll check it out and let you know how it goes! --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

sst✈, I added it to my vector.js page and reloaded, as the instructions say, but I'm not seeing any tabs when I view an AfD page. I tried both Chrome and Safari. Am I not looking in the right place? Where are the tabs supposed to appear? Any talk page stalkers have any advice/suggestions? --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The tabs are "Close" and "Relist" (first letter capitalized), they appear under the More drop down menu. (Is that what you are asking?) sst✈^(discuss) 07:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was asking. And there they are! Yesterday they weren't there! Maybe the computer just needed to sleep on it or something. Thanks for the advice. --MelanieN (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: OK, it's working for me and I like it a lot better. It is simpler and more intuitive, as well as faster. Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hello Melanie. Your name does not across as Indonesian. Where in Indonesia are you from? I guess you have very limited knowledge of Indonesia and Jakarta and I forgive you for your ignorance and rushed decision to delete this page. There is no need to delete a Wikipedia page of one of famous tv presenter of the best infotainment program (SILET) in RCTI channel, actress and the winner of major awards. If you think some parts of the Dona Amelia Wikipedia page was too commercial then say so or edit it (or delete those parts that you don't like only), don't just delete the whole page, that is just RUDE. I trust that you make the page live again right now. There is lots of great content there and Dona is a real artist. My questions is, are you a real person or just full of hate and anger?

Nick.Jonsson75 (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nick.Jonsson75: I suggest that you move on and better familiarize with WP:BIO and WP:RS. Your comments here are a borderline personal attack as well; you'll be blocked from editing if you continue making similar comments. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Nick.Jonsson75. I deleted the article as a result of a community decision. The discussion and decision can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dona Amelia. The decision was not "rushed"; the discussion went on for a week. The concern was that she does not meet Wikipedia's requirement to have an article here. The requirement can be found at WP:General notability guideline. It says that the person must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. "Independent" means outside sources - not things that she herself creates like press releases, Facebook, Twitter, and IMDb. "Reliable" means sources like newspapers, sources that are known for fact checking and editorial control - not interviews, not just repeating what the person or their publicist said, but actual reporting.
You seem to feel that only Indonesians should be allowed to judge an article about an Indonesian. That's not how it works here; we judge an article by what is already in print about them, not by what we personally know or how we feel about the subject. Since you feel that she can only be properly appreciated by Indonesians, you might consider creating an article at the Indonesian Wikipedia. She does not currently have an article there, although she is mentioned in the articles about the band Stinky and the program SILET. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Melanie. Being a famous person she already has an Indonesian Wikipedia page, that was not created by me, although I have done some minor edits to it. You can see it here: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Amelia. I can understand that you did not find it since sometimes they spell her name DONA and other times DONNA. Does this help to bring back her English version? Anything else that you need now? As you mentions she is mentioned in articles from the band Stinky which is one of the major bands in Indonesia where she was the lead singer. She also was one of the famous tv presenters at Silet. Hope that with all this evidence together we can get the English version live again? If any concerns, why not just delete some parts of it, rather than the full page. The fact that she won Charly's Angels and you had a reference to it on her page shows her level. Charly's Angels is more or less the same as American Idol. Would not the winner of American Idol qualify to have a Wikipedia page in English language? Thanks for your help and support! --118.68.181.222 (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, what we need are SOURCES, not explanations. We require significant coverage from independent reliable sources. You did have some sources in the original article, but most of them were not from independent or reliable sources. But maybe you can find more. The people at the deletion discussion did suggest that the article might be kept if it was improved. I am willing to give you a chance to improve the article. I will put it into your private space where it is not part of the actual encyclopedia; there you can work on it without anyone deleting it. You will need to add more sources, and to rewrite the article so it reads like a proper biography. Right now it is a disorganized list of appearances and songs and tours and whatever. It should be organized into sections (things like Early life and education; Music career; Television career; Personal life, etc.) Take a look at articles about other people, for example Maudy Ayunda or Surya Saputra, to see how the article should be written. You might also want to read WP:Your first article. Work on the article until you think it is ready. Then have me or any other administrator take a look at it. If I find it is significantly improved over the deleted article, I will attach a note saying so, before you move it back into the encyclopedia. If you move it into the encyclopedia without first checking with an administrator, it will probably get deleted immediately, per WP:G4. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, the article is here for you to work on: User:Nick.Jonsson75/Dona Amelia. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Melanie. I will get started on this. Just for your information that not many people in South East Asia know how to contribute to Wikipedia. I am trying my best to get around and learn this so appreciate you patience. I will read and follow all your recommendations and hope that in the end we have something that you and all the rest of Wikipedia users are happy with. All the best! Nick Nick.Jonsson75 (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Melanie. I have done some more edits now. Is it ok now? How can I make the page separated like the ones you recommend, I.e. career, personal life etc. Thanks again, Nick Nick.Jonsson75 (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nick.Jonsson75: Thanks for working on the article. Actually, no, it isn't any better. It is still disorganized, a random list of one-sentence paragraphs that don't form any narrative or biography. You need to combine those one-sentence mentions into paragraphs that tell her story. One way to organize it would be "Early life and education", "Music career" (records, Stinky), "Television and movie career" (Charlie's Angels, Silet), etc. Another way would be chronologically, which you sort of have now, but some parts are not connected to any timeline. More to the point, none of the things she is involved with - Stinky, SILET, Charlie's Angels, etc. - seem to have any sources or information in English. All the links are to the Indonesian Wikipedia and all the references are in Indonesian. It isn't required to have English sources but it makes it much easier for people to evaluate. Right now I can't approve returning this article to the encyclopedia, because it still has the same problems it had before. --MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok Melanie, well noted. Could I ask for your guidance how to structure it like you suggests? I mean, how to I insert those HEADLINES that are in larger font? Thanks so much! Nick 116.106.8.98 (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

To create a section heading, use two equal signs on either side, like this: ==Heading== --MelanieN (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie. I will start working on this now. Please give me some time since it is not easy to ind reliable sources as you ask for here in Asia. Most is Youtube and other social media sites. Is it ok that I continue to work on this page for a few weeks to come? Nick Nick.Jonsson75 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, thanks to your amazing help I hope we have something now. Any more changes needed? Thanks

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.Jonsson75 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't take a look at it right now. But take your time. There is no deadline. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok Melanie, that is good to hear. I just did some more minor edits now. Merry X Mas to you! Nick Nick.Jonsson75 (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, here is another article that proves that Dona Amelia won Charly's Angel in Jakarta: http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2010/01/24/19252557/Citra.Happy.dan.Elvi.Calon.Angels.dari.Bandung

It is from a credible source (major newspaper). Does this help?

Thanks,

Nick Nick.Jonsson75 (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

UMBEL Delete Appeal

We appeal the removal of the referenced article. UMBEL is an open-source upper ontology used in the Semantic Web, and has been an entry on Wikipedia for 5-6 years (since article is now removed, I can not ascertain exact date of first entry). Apparently the two reasons for removal cited in the record for removal are notability and the assertion the article is an "advertorial" for my company. Since I am mentioned in the deletion decision, the UMBEL project has requested I initiate the appeal.

With regard to notability, we believe the assertions about Google Scholar citations in the deletion record to be incorrect and incomplete. This query shows there to be 525 relevant citations for UMBEL on G Scholar. There are at least six other ontologies currently on Wikipedia that have fewer G Scholar citations, i.e., RXNO Ontology (30), TIME-ITEM (124), NeuroLex (221), OntoCAPE (250), FRBRoo (360), and BabelNet (436). Further, a broad Web search of external third parties indicates about 15,000 references for UMBEL, many of high quality (12% of the first 100, for example, are book references).

With regard to being an "advertorial", it is true I am a co-editor of UMBEL and make occasional edits to update version numbers, concept coverage, and other UMBEL facts. I think this is pretty common for other open-source entries on Wikipedia. It is also true that the host of UMBEL's Web sites and financial sponsor for my editing contributions is the company for which I am CEO. This, too, is quite common for many open-source projects. But UMBEL was formed more than a year before the company and the only link to the company in the article is as a sponsor. I do not see any "advertorial" aspects, though we would be happy to remove any offending statements (for which I believe there are none).

In summary, we seek a reinstitution of the UMBEL article. If there are issues of needed third-party links or anything in violation of Wikipedia's conflict policies, please so identify those. UMBEL and its users would be pleased to conform the article to Wikipedia's guidelines in these areas. We believe removal of the article to be unwarranted and inconsistent with other related articles in this area. Thanks for your consideration!

PS I was a bit confused about where to post this appeal. I hope this is the correct location. :) Mkbergman (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mkbergman, and thanks for your note. Yes, I am the person to ask since I deleted the article. As you know, it was deleted as the result of this discussion. People's concern was SOURCES. The article as deleted had NO independent sources; all of the references were to UMBEL's own web page or to other self-generated material such as a release announcement or a SlideShare item. Significant coverage from independent, reliable sources is required to establish notability. That is part of the problem. The other part is that you, as CEO of the company that developed UMBEL, should not be writing about it. You were advised about conflict of interest way back in 2009, and you have revealed your COI on your userpage as required. Yet everything you have done here has been to promote your own company. Two of your now deleted previous articles, Big structure (liberally quoting yourself) and Structured Dynamics, were about your company. You also created Open Semantic Framework about your company, and most of your other edits have been promotional (such as listing your articles under "See also" on dozens of pages). I have trouble believing what you now say about your company being just "the host" and "a sponsor" of UMBEL, since the deleted article listed Structured Dynamics as the developer of UMBEL. I really consider that you have been in violation of Wikipedia's policies and that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to hype your own company and its associates. (You clearly stated that you are here at the request of the UMBEL group, and your "we believe", "we seek", "we request" makes it clear you are speaking on their behalf, whether or not they are the same entity as you). For that reason I will not restore the UMBEL article for you; if UMBEL is notable enough, some independent third party will write about it. (And don't send one of your employees here to pretend to be an uninvolved third party; that could get you and them blocked from editing.) You are welcome to edit Wikipedia about things other than your own company, but I strongly advise you to stop promoting your own company here. Granted, I am just one person, and a volunteer at that; you are welcome to ask other administrators for advice. --MelanieN (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mkbergman: On thinking it over, I have changed my mind. Current Wikipedia policy does allow for paid editing, if it is disclosed, which you have done, and if it is neutral and not promotional in tone. So that leaves the problem of lack of independent sourcing. If you can show me links to some independent sources which you can use to verify facts about UMBEL, I will restore the article to your private user space. There you can add references and improve the article, and then try again to put it into the encyclopedia. Can you show me some examples of independent reliable sources that you will be able to add to the article? --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thanks for your further reflection. I think reference to my company as a "developer" is probably not as accurate as "sponsor"; I would propose changing that. Also, I think there are broader questions relating to treatment of open source projects; I like the neutral and non-promotional guidance. My company, for example, makes no money from UMBEL, but does see it as a means to improve the overall Semantic Web, which is a commercial focus for the company. Nonetheless, here is a variety of possible references that could be added to the article: (1), (2), (3), (4)], (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11). I would have to see the article again to determine which, if any, of these, or possibly others, best provide the independent sourcing. Mkbergman (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mkbergman: OK, thanks for the research. I see one good solid reference in that list: #7, a book, appears independent and authoritative, and has significant coverage about UMBEL. If you can find a few others like that, UMBEL's notability will be confirmed. #9 also has a brief entry about UMBEL. But the others don't really help: I'm not sure if #1 and #8 qualify as a reliable or independent source, and the others don't actually mention UMBEL that I could find. They talk about related things such as DBPedia. These references could be used to explain or illustrate concepts in the article, but they do not contribute to UMBEL's notability. But #7 is encouraging and makes me think you may be able to find a few more of what we need: independent reliable sources that give significant coverage to UMBEL. I suggest you look for sources at Google Scholar and Google Books, and make sure that they actually give significant coverage to UMBEL and can be used to footnote some of the information in the article. All right, I think this is possible. I will restore the article in your user space so that you can improve it and add text citations for suitable references. Be sure to read WP:Referencing for beginners to see how to add the citations. One other thing: the article needs to be made a little more approachable to a normal reader. The original article was so technical that unless a person was well versed in the field, they wouldn't even be able to tell what UMBEL is. At a minimum, the first sentence (the lead) needs to state clearly and in plain English what kind of thing the subject is. When you think you have it ready, let me know. If I think it is sufficiently improved from the original version, I will put a note on the article saying so; otherwise it would probably be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4 as soon as you moved it into article space. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The restored article is here for you to work on: User:Mkbergman/UMBEL. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thanks for restoring the article so I may make the edits you suggest. Your pointing to examples helps with the question of notability. As I proceed, two questions, please: 1) are there any prohibitions for me to make the suggested changes given the editing issues that caused the delete action in the first place? and 2) is there a time limit to make the changes?; with the busyness of the holidays, I may not be able to get to this until shortly after the first of the year. Mkbergman (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

RE 1): You have already complied with WP:Paid contribution disclosure by posting the information on your userpage. To be doubly safe you could put a similar disclosure on the article's talk page. Your contributions will be scrutinized for promotionalism but are not prohibited. RE 2) There is no time limit; the draft is safe in your userspace and should not be a target of deletion, unless it sits for many months without any editing at all. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @MelanieN:. I have followed your advice and revised the UMBEL article. The revision is at User:Mkbergman/UMBEL. I have left all notices on this version. If restored, I will put an entry on the talk page explaining my relationship. When you have a chance, I'd like your feedback. Please do at your convenience, since I have taken much time in doing these revisions. If you do restore, I'd also appreciate any advice on actual posting. Thanks again for your guidance throughout this process. Mkbergman (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mkbergman: Thanks. You have done a good job adding references. You now have six or eight that are not WP:Primary sources, and lack of such sources was the main reason the article was deleted. So you have overcome that objection and I think it can be moved back into the encyclopedia. As you pointed out, many related articles have few or no references, so this is now one of the better referenced ones.

One thing could still be improved: the article is still too WP:TECHNICAL - so much so that I still can't tell what UMBEL actually is. I asked the techiest Wikipedian I know, and he can't tell either. Is it software? Is it information science? Is it a knowledge base? Is it linked data? Is it a semantic network? What is it, what does it do? Ideally an article, even a technical article, should have a lead sentence or two in non-technical language, so that a non-professional in the field can get some idea of what the subject is about. Don't take this as criticism; most articles in the general field of ontology are overly technical; it must be a difficult concept to put into words. Just imagine that you are trying to explain to an acquaintance what it is that you do. The DBpedia article has a pretty good lead section. Here are a few other articles that seem to approach what I am talking about: IDEF5, GOLD (ontology), Cyc. You may be able to find others at Category:Ontology (information science). See if you can do anything to the lead sentence along those lines, and then I will tell you how to put the article back in the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: OK, I have taken another crack at an improved introduction. Thanks for the suggestions. You're right, it is pretty technical stuff. As artifacts, ontologies are kind of hard to explain. They may either be downloaded and used locally, in which case they are more-or-less like software or a database schema. Or, they may be linked to and incorporated by reference. If you still feel this explanation is lacking, I will try another version.Mkbergman (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think that helps. If this stuff was easy, everybody would do it, right? 0;-D I think you now have one of our best articles on this subject. You can go ahead and add it to the encyclopedia. Here's how: First, remove the {{userfied page}} tag; leave the paid editing tag. Then find the "move" button and click it; in my version of Wikipedia it is under the "more" button at the top of the page. Under the dropdown menu, change from User to (Article). For the title, remove your name and the slash, leaving just UMBEL. Leave the defaults checked. Double check, then click "move page". Reactivate the categories, by removing the colon before the word "category". You might look at comparable articles to see what categories are appropriate. Add your explanation of your WP:COI to the talk page. You might also add some Wikiprojects to the talk page; look at the talk page of comparable articles (maybe Cyc or DBpedia?) to see what WikiProjects to add. Don't try to rate them, just add the bare template: {{WikiProject Cognitive science}} or whatever applies.
You will find that new-page patrollers will check your article, and they may make suggestions or changes. I will add a comment to the talk page right now, saying that this is substantially different from the previously deleted article, so that it doesn't get tagged with WP:G4 for speedy deletion. It could still get nominated for a second AfD discussion but I don't think that is likely. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

One other thing: after you move it, there will automatically be a redirect from your userpage draft. But you don't want that; you will want your draft to go away. You can tag it for deletion by putting {{Db-u1}} at the top of the draft page. Or you can simply blank the page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN:: Thanks so much for all of your help on this. I believe I have followed the steps you outlined, which were very clear. Thanks again. As a constant user of Wikipedia, I thank you for your efforts in keeping the system up to standards. Mkbergman (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, is there a template for deleted pages that have been restored? If so, it would be helpful to add that to the Talk page as well. Mkbergman (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome; thanks for improving the article. RE: template: there's just the template/notice that is already there, the one called "Old AfD multi". It says "This page was nominated for deletion on November 18, 2015. The result of the discussion was delete." My note should cover the rest of it. As for the fact that it was deleted, restored, moved, etc., that is all visible in the history. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Ironic touch: the article has been reviewed and accepted by a new page reviewer. I recognize them as someone who voted "delete" at the AfD discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Company Folders

You had mentioned in your decision at [1] that you would userfy the article upon request and I was wondering if you would be willing to do that for me. I imagine it won't be difficult to build it up enough to meet notability guidelines. PeRshGo (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@PeRshGo: OK, I have restored it. The article is here for you to work on: User:PeRshGo/Company Folders. You will need to find significant coverage from independent reliable sources; there wasn't much in the original article, the NBC News article was about it. Also the tone of the article is very promotional and you are going to have to fix that; I am talking about things like "To further assist clients with creating and optimizing their designs", "As part of the company's efforts to engage with graphic designers and provide with a platform to help them promote their work", etc.; this is basically just "look what a wonderful company we are". When you think you have it ready, let me know. If I think it is sufficiently improved from the original version, I will put a note on the article saying so; otherwise it will probably be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4 as soon as you move it into article space. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

RfB

Would you ever consider running for RfB? The conversation at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard had me wondering who would be a great candidate. I'm not sure if being a co-nom would be to your benefit but I would be happy to offer if ever you were interested. No pressure. Mkdw^talk 19:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, Mkdw, I am flattered. But I don't see that in my future right now and probably not for years. I have been an admin for less than a year. And I find that adminship duties are enough for me to handle right now without totally giving up on article work. Besides, I'd rather participate in RfAs than close them! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

User:IndianBio misinterpreting sources on Bitch I'm Madonna article

Hi Melanie. Please can you look into this situation. Indianbio keeps insisting that Bitch I'm Madonna's genre is vaporwave when the Chicago Reader source he uses merely says it "sounds A LITTLE like vaporwave". He is misinterpreting the source and using original research. A number of IP editors have been trying to remove this from the article for months but we all get blindly blocked and ignored. If something is not done I will personally contact the Chicago Reader! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.239.82.135 (talk • contribs)

I have protected the article again to stop the edit warring. You must not just keep changing it; that is against Wikipedia policy; there has to be consensus on what it should say. The article is a WP:Good article and has said "vaporwave" for a long time, so the presumption would be to keep it, unless you have a stronger argument than just "it doesn't sound like vaporwave to me". I will ask a couple of friends, who know more about music genres than I do, to take a look at the situation and advise. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have seen enough genre wars to last a lifetime (maybe I should write an essay on this?) and my general rule of thumb is use the most recent conversation that reached consensus, whatever that was. In this case, it was the GA review, which as listed had waporwave as a genre. IndianBio has also said he has a source for the genre, so I think consensus is that it can stay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It should be noted that IndianBio is not the only one restoring this description; at least two other people are also reverting the IP removals. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Melanie and Ritchie. I have started a discussion on the talk page twice but I have been ignored. The issue is that the source had been misinterpreted and Indianbio fails to recognize this. The Chicago Reader source says clearly that Bitch I'm Madonna "sounds A LITTLE like vaporwave". This obviously does NOT mean it is of the vaporwave genre. I would also like to point out that nothing else on the internet besides this source even mentions Madonna and vaporwave in the same sentence. Vaporwave is a very complex genre and as far from pop music you can get. Many editors and IPs have been arguing over this classification of the song for months if you look at the article history and this will continue and continue because Bitch I'm Madonna is not a vaporwave song and the source used has clearly been misinterpreted and taken out of proportion. Thanks. 178.239.82.5 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you post this argument on the talk page. I am going to post a link to this discussion on that talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, MelanieN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Walter S. Graf

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25