User talk:Melly42

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wik.ipedia.Pro. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Wik.ipedia.Pro
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wik.ipedia.Pro documentation, there's also Wik.ipedia.Pro:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wik.ipedia.Pron! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Seeaxid 13:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please source your images uploaded onto Wik.ipedia.Pro with copyright statuses or they will be deleted. Swollib 03:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tagging this article for deletion. However, have you ever considered merging a page? One of the reasons we would merge a page would be if there are two or more articles on exactly the same subject, such as Pathfinder (1987 film) and The Pathfinder. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i am writing for Wik.ipedia.Pro since July but i am still not familiar with the functions of Wik.ipedia.Pro. Melly42 17:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Nils Gaup, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hi! Without more information than what you have about this individual, it's a speedy deletion candidate. That's why it was deleted in the first place. All we have at present is an opening statement. What shows did he write for? What was his personal history? Any awards?

Remember: A good stub should have at least three good, solid, informative sentences. - Lucky 6.9 01:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but not 1 minute after starting --Melly42 01:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Respectfully disagree. These are not organic; they depend on those writing them to make them grow. I have no way of knowing what your intents are for an article's future. It looks great now, by the way. - Lucky 6.9 08:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reverting vandalism in this article. Berton 23:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melanie,

Thanks for your kind words! At the moment I am finishing my doctoral thesis, so I do not have that much time... In a few months, I will be back online with some more time to spare, then we can work something out!

Have you been to Mauritius?

Best, Dennis

Hello Dennis,

i've never been to Mauritius, but i'm interested in the fauna, flora, landscapes, forests, and geology of Mauritius.

By the way I've found four interesting books about the flora of Mauritius so far:

France Staub "Fauna of Mauritius and associated flora" (this book is unfortunately not available in Europe)

BAKER, John Gilbert: "Flora of mauritius and the Seychelles". 1877. (Reprint 1970, Hist.Nat.Class., 75). XXIV,L,588 p. gr8vo. Cloth. (ISBN 3-7682-0677-7)

Gurib - Fakim, Ameenah: An Illustrated Guide to the Flora of mauritius and the Indian Ocean Islands. 2003. 431 col. photographs. XIV, 206 p. Paper bd. (i've tried to order this book from an international bookstore in Germany. I will knowing more in about four weeks).

1997 IUCN Redlist of Threatened Plants

--Melly42 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started a split, but do need more help.--Mfranck 11:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have announced your article Jean Godin des Odonais at Wik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject France/New article announcements. This helps editors to help and contribute in France related articles. Happy editing, STTW (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:16b8 1 b.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wik.ipedia.Pro under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wik.ipedia.Pro page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this [1] was really fast. You made me an edit conflict ;-) --BLueFiSH ✉ 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you removed the image from the article, and I've since reinstated it with further fair use rationale added to the image page. I was wondering if you could give it a read and see if it's satisfactory? This is the first time I've had to justify such an image. I believe not only is it a special case (how often do you see a celebrity animal on the cover of a magazine?), but similar images are used in the same way (such as Image:Knightley - Johansson - Vanity Fair Full Cover.jpg). I'd appreciate your input.  :) María (habla conmigo) 12:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i've removed this picture because the fairuse rationale in the United States refers only to the main subject (in that case the magazine Vanity Fair). Any other use (also in Wik.ipedia.Pro) is a refringement of fairuse. In the case of the Knightley - Johansson arcticle you should asked an administrator but i think it had to be also removed in that article. --Melly42 12:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yield sign.svg Welcome to Wik.ipedia.Pro. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Black River (district). Please be more careful when editing articles provide an , so that others will not revert it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your move from Vampires Are Alive to Vampires Are Alive (song). There is no other article entitled 'Vampires Are Alive', so there is no need for the parenthesis. J Milburn 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:A world apart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bjh gonetoearth.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wik.ipedia.Pro articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wik.ipedia.Pro policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wik.ipedia.Pro page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to delete Pelea was wrong. The redirect needed to be turned into a disambiguation page. Gdr 19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think that it was wrong. According to ipni there are enough species in the genus pelea which are not included in the genus melicope. --Melly42 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might legitimately disagree about the taxonomy. (I'm merely following Hartley 1989 here; but even IPNI notes the synonymy here.) But the deletion was quite wrong. Gdr 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:L-shapedroom .jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wik.ipedia.Pro policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I took out the synonym of the Seychelles Warbler that you added to the text (Bebrornis sechellensis). If you add a synonym to the text (as opposed to the taxobox) it is really helpful to have some sort of explanation for that (for example that it is a controversial bird or its taxonomy is uncertain.). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found a ref and did it myself. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very good catch you made there. Needs more research. Have taken off the doubtful information for now. Shyamal 04:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melanie! I noticed your edits to Bolyeria and see that you question the geographical range data. I can understand why, since all the other information I've seen describes the range for both genera -- Bolyeria and Casarea -- as being restricted to Round Island. However, I assure you that my source, McDiarmid et al. (1999), is highly reputable. As the synonymy shows, the descriptions for B. multocarinata go back to 1827, so I can only imagine that it was once found on all of the islands mentioned. The book doesn't actually say that Round Island was the species' "last stand", although I believe that was the case. I was simply being true to the book, but if you think it's necessary I can try to rephrase the statement to make it look a little less ambiguous.
Regarding your note on Day (1981) being the "main reference for the article", if you believe the entire text in the Description section is true to this publication, then we should cite it as an inline reference. I can easily do this, but perhaps you could then be so good as to provide a few more details about the book: the number of printed pages, the name and location of the publisher and the ISBN number. Cheers! --Jwinius 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, the whole description section, the common name , the date of extinction, the reason for its disappearance can be find in the Reference by D. Day. An secondly all sources (including the IUCN source) known by myself are given only Round Island for the range of Bolyeria. It might be that Bolyeria have a wider range in prehistoric times, but in historic times it seems that it only occurred on Round Island. --Melly42 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to get defensive; I was just telling you what I know, what I did, and want this to be resolved reasonably. If you got your information from Day (1981), that's fine. Our different sources don't mean to disagree with each other, although it may sometimes seem that way. It may be the case that neither species has been seen anywhere else except on Round Island for the last 100 years, but the first distribution records are hardly paleontological and deserve to be quoted also. However, we can make sure that everyone understands that the last place it was reported was on Round Island (in 1975). Now, if you'll be so kind as to supply me with that book information... --Jwinius 15:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hellstromchronicle.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wik.ipedia.Pro under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wik.ipedia.Pro (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wik.ipedia.Pro page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Melly42! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wik.ipedia.Prons' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wik.ipedia.Pro:German-speaking Wik.ipedia.Prons' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was my grandfather (in law). I expect an obituary will be printed in the next day or 2. You can remove the date of death until that appears. Thanks for watching out for his page!--harraton

i've added the commentary tag until the message will be published in the press --Melly42 (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am Harraton's cousin-in-law; Mel Traylor was also my grandfather. I think it's pretty safe to add his birthdate - December 15, 1915. That has surely been published somewhere in the past 92 years. -- Gate1998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gate1998 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. The date of birth will be added into article. It would be good to inform me when the message of his death is published. My condulences. --Melly42 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And I goofed - its Dec. 16, not the 15th. Sorry! gate1998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.2.34 (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, Family and friends gathered this weekend to celebrate my grandfather, Mel Traylor's, life. Those who had not known about this page were thrilled to learn about it. Several of us have been discussing it, and we would like to expand the entry. Much of what we would enter would come from my grandfather's own autobiography. It has not been published, per se, but is a lengthy work based on his recollections and the meticulous journals he kept over the years. Would you be amenable to this? --Jennifer Gate1998 (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, of course. thanks for your help to improve the article --Melly42 (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It will probably be a little while, but I will definitely be adding some info. Gate1998 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's my pleasure. thanks. --Melly42 (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day,

There is no such IUCN category as "Critically endangered (possibly extinct)". The IUCN category is called "Critically endangered". Accordingly, it is listed as "Critically endangered" in the official listing.[2] Note the title: "Tachybaptus rufolavatus - Critically Endangered"

Even on the BirdLife factsheet, you might note the big red box with "CR", the code for "Critically Endangered", in it, just left of the title. Also, if you inspect carefully the layout of the factsheet, you'll see that you can read the boldface alone as

"2007 IUCN Red List Category: Critically Endangered".

The non-boldface stuff in brackets can be understood to be non-normative annotations on that:

"2007 IUCN Red List Category (as evaluated by BirdLife International - the official Red List Authority for birds for IUCN): Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct)"

You wouldn't consider the "as evaluated by" stuff to be part of the categorisation system's official name, so I don't see why you would consider the "Possible extinct" bit to be part of the official categorisation, especially considering that particular category doesn't exist.

I have had another go at putting this the way I think it should be.[3]

Hesperian 12:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing that a grebe was inherently a water bird, I edited the Atitlán Grebe article in such a manner that a sentence was rendered redundant and a bit nonsensical: The Atitlán Grebe (Podilymbus gigas), also known as Giant Grebe, Giant Pied-billed Grebe, or Poc, is an extinct relative of the Pied-billed Grebe, a water bird. You rightly reverted this. However, I do feel that the lead paragraph should state, for the general lay reader — who may not know what a grebe is without having to click through to find out from another article — that the Atitlán Grebe is a water bird. Perhaps this would be better:

The Atitlán Grebe (Podilymbus gigas), also known as Giant Grebe, Giant Pied-billed Grebe, or Poc, is an extinct water bird, a relative of the Pied-billed Grebe.

This makes it clear right off the bat, to all readers, that this extinct animal was a water bird. Just a thought. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made the change already. Thanks! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Galapagosdamsel.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Galapagos damsel.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wik.ipedia.Pro, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wik.ipedia.Pro, in this case: [[Image:Galapagos damsel.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I edited Galapagos damsel so that it uses the image on the Commons. --Eastmain (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted my comments at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales about Joseph H. Wales, my expectation was that Jimbo would say "Cool!" whether or not the scientist was related to him. I was not trying to get the article deleted, and I feel (as you do) that Joseph H. Wales is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank's for the explanation --Melly42 (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I removed your mention of the Yellowhead as we currently have that species as a whistler, not a thornbill. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit stated that it is called Rhodonessa but I now realize that you are questioning the placement in Netta, I think if you think the majority treatment is for Rhodonessa, you should just go and edit the taxobox and merely state the suggestions of Livezey instead of the confusing statements. Shyamal (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what was with the fact tag? Do you dispute its name? Ironholds (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes. do you have a reliable source which confirm this common name as most used common name in the current literature? --Melly42 (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay, sorry. I've thought its name is Vespucci's Rat or so. But I've just found this name in MSW 3. I've remove the fact tag. --Melly42 (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about photos, per se of the Imperial Woodpecker. I had qualified the statement about "no photos" because the 1953 film is, in fact, a photographic record. I think it counts as a photo, but the wording does not really matter, as the existence of the film is explained immediately thereafter in the article. Best wishes, Cotinis (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the UK, but spoilers aren't the issue for me. There have been very few details released about the third season, and a lot of people have been adding summaries that are impossible to verify. I removed the information because I didn't know that the episode had already aired in Germany and, while we knew Cutter would be leaving, it hadn't been stated when. Since the episode has aired however, I'll reinstate the information. Thanks for letting me know about the German airing. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting out unsourced information from wp:blps is not "crap" or "vandalism", nor is removing information not available in incorrectly cited websites. See also wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t18:08z

Hi Melly; thanks for helping tidy up the refs on this article. Cheers. Maias (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! Thanks for doing that!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Oʻahu_ʻŌʻō on why I put back the bit on Bloxam which you removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Jennifer F. M. Horne, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wik.ipedia.Pro's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Articles for deletion/Jennifer F. M. Horne. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drdisque (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the beautiful image of the moon you have added to the Blue moon article.Gandydancer (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved Lake Geneva whitefish to gravenche, as you suggested. I've also replied to your comment at Talk:Small-eyed Duck. The point I made there is important. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Melly42! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 139 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Mervyn Warren - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged an article for CSD because of a move ... there is a specific tag for that which will also include the article to be moved: {{db-move}}. Could you either re-tag, or let me know where the decision to move has been held. Thanks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfärrit should be moved to Coregonus confusus --Melly42 (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melly. As you are one of the contributors to the article I would be interested in your opinion if the youtube views should be kept or left out. There is a discussion going on here. Janfrie1988 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Melly. I have remembered you since the time you added the blue moon picture to that article. I would like to import a picture to Wik.ipedia.Pro and I'd like to put it at the Toddler article, but my computer skills are very limited. Could you either walk me though this project or, if it is somewhat difficult, do it for me? It is not that I'm just too lazy to do it myself, it is just that what can be so simple for one with more experience is next to impossible for a person like me. The picture is at my Flicker acct. here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gandydancer/3173573510/ Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if this picture is taken by yourself you can upload it at wikimeda commons --Melly42 (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Douglas Pratt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

redirects to Harold Douglas Pratt, Jr., three incoming links none of whom are the redirect. Should be a red link or disambig page

While all contributions to Wik.ipedia.Pro are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 14:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melanie, du warst einen Tick schneller als ich mit dem Zurücksetzen des Unfugs bei Lena Meyer-Landrut. Vielen Dank für dein flottes Agieren! Jared Preston (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ich würde die Seite halbsperren lassen. Der Vandalismus wird in den nächsten 4 Monaten garantiert verstärkt auftreten --Melly42 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Und, eineinhalb Jahre später, gut aufgepasst mit HamiUbsant -- ich hab den restlichen Blödsinn rückgängig gemacht. Grüße, Amalthea 21:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herzlichen Dank. Gut, dass es auch bei der spanischen WP gelöscht wurde --Melly42 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am an editor of biography articles about musicians. I noticed the work you did on the article for the Lilith Fair. If you are interested, please leave a note on my talk page! We can also really use help on the articles for the Dixie Chicks. Happy to meet you! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Melly42. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Scolopax rosenbergii, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this is not a valid speedy reason - if you think it should be deleted, take it to WP:RFD, or replace with a sourced stub basedd on up-to-date information. . Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of its "correct" name, an article must never be moved by copying and pasting. The article's history must be kept with the text for licensing purposes. If you find you cannot move an article properly yourself, you can use WP:RM to request it. In the case of Karocolens tuberculatus, the newest reference given at Wikispecies is the new combination in Karocolens made in 2010. You would need to find a reference from since then explaining why that was invalid to be able to claim that the article should be at "Hadramphus tuberculatus", I think. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have no access to the 2010 reference (so someone has to send me the complete article). In all references which i have given in the Hadramphus article is stated that Karocolens is an invalid name, because according to the ICZN, Hadramphus is the genus name which is having priority. Otherwise in the 2010 reference is stated that Karocolens tuberlatus does not belong to the other species in the Hadramphus genus and might be monotypic --Melly42 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the type species of Hadramphus is Hadramphus spinipennis (Broun, 1911). Would be interesting to know why this species should be now named Karocolens spinnipennis. (Karocolens was created in 1987) --Melly42 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The critical issue is that the priority of Hadramphus over Karocolens is only important *if the two are considered congeneric*. It is perfectly possible to consider them both to be valid genera, and that appears to be the position taken by Macfarlane et al. (2010) (a PDF is here, although it turns out it gives no detail at all). The type species of Karocolens is Karocolens pittospori, so there's no reason why the two type species can't be in separate genera. What is your source for considering Karocolens to be a synonym of Hadramphus? It would seem that the latest thinking is that they are two genera. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the reference. That means indeed that Karocolens and Hadramphus were split again in the mean time. I only have Craws reference (1999) where Hadramphus und Karocolens were lumped into the sole genus Hadramphus. In that case we should create a new article for the genus Karocolens. It would be interesting to find out the reason for the new split --Melly42 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wik.ipedia.Pro appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trias Greenfinch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pterygoid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Stephen Dunham. Please review the guidelines at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 10:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word to say that after I corrected the spelling of woolly mammoth in the subject article, I looked into the validity of the additions that had just been made by the IP user. I found that they were not valid and that the IP user who added them has added dubious additions if not outright vandalism to other articles. These additions included adding the North Africa range for the woolly mammoth to the article on that extinct animal. Although I became suspicious of the edits, you recognized the problem with them faster than I did. Your edit was timely and correct. Donner60 (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Melly42; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make this change [4]? I think the date of 1936 must be right, because that's what this [5] says, and because he retired in 2001 (65 is the usual retiring age in UK). Do you have a different source? Philip Trueman (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was once another source, but I can't find it anymore. I will change it back to 1936. --Melly42 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew for certain! I've met him, but I don't know him well enough to ask when he was born. It is a little worrying that the only Peter J. Grubb on the FreeBMD site has a DoB of 1935 not 1936, but that's not a reliable enough source for Wik.ipedia.Pro. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lena Meyer-Landrut may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• that she will be coach in the second season of the [[The Voice Kids]] along with Henning Wehland (from the Band [[Söhne Mannheims]] and Johannes Strate (from the band [[Revolverheld (band)|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Hello Melly42, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hadramphus tuberculatus, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: If th move has been agreed to on Wik.ipedia.Pro, please use {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}}. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. the panda ₯’ 11:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and merge tose two Japanese river otters together. You waited enough. Hafspajen (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you created the page for Bruce Campbell (ornithologist). I have created a page for another ornithologist, Jannion Steele Elliott, that is being proposed for deletion. Bruce Campbell was an admirer of Steele Elliott (as mentioned in the article) and I wondered if there was anything you could add to the page to avoid its impending deletion? Many thanks, MJT21 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you undid my edit in Late Quaternary prehistoric birds, because you thought that the species was a synonym added an extant species, but the information I got this bird was the book Extinct Madagascar, which was published in 2014, and the bird Monias sp. is in the book as prehistoric, and does not refer to species that you thought it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsdl (talk • contribs) 22:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm mbsdl, you undid my edit in Late Quaternary prehistoric birds, because you thought that the species was a synonym added an extant species, but the information I got this bird was the book Extinct Madagascar, which was published in 2014, and the bird Monias sp. is in the book as prehistoric, and does not refer to species that you thought it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsdl (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last year there was an article by Goodman where he state that fossil Monias bones found in the Ankilitelo Cave refer to the extant species Monias benschi http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2013/f/zt03750p548.pdf --Melly42 (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Melly42. I was reading Táchira antpitta, which you created way back on July 1, 2007, and noticed that it says "The Táchira antpitta is a cryptical bird species." I wasn't sure what "cryptical" meant so I clicked on the link which took me to "Cryptozoology". I knew what that meant and returned to the article. But then it seemed like this is in fact a real bird that has in fact been found, collected, and documented. I was confused. I seems to me that instead of "cryptical", just "rare, possibly extinct" is meant unless "cryptical" has some specific meaning in birding beyond which I'm accustomed. Are you using this word correctly? Jason Quinn (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cryptic is also used for enigmatic species, e.g. the okapi or the Komodo dragon. In the case of Tachira antpitta it means that is only known by a few specimens collected in the early 1950s but it is unknown whether it is rare or extinct or whether it is still exist in some areas --Melly42 (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page for Cryptozoology says that it includes "looking for living examples of animals that are considered extinct". It gives searches for "non-avian dinosaurs" as an example. It also says, "Cryptozoology is not a recognized branch of zoology or a discipline of science", and strongly associates it with pseudoscience. There seems to me a huge qualitative difference between people looking for non-avian dinosaurs and people looking for the Táchira antpitta. The former has virtually no chance of success and any searches for them have little scientific value. The latter, however, has a chance of success and even if birds aren't found, it's contributing to scientific thought because it's helping to confirm the bird is actually extinct when there's some reasonable uncertainty. There's merit there. So since searching for holdouts of a recently extinct species is not pseudoscience, I don't think qualifies (or should) as cryptozoology. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wik.ipedia.Pro Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wik.ipedia.Pro work, make sure to include citations with links on Wik.ipedia.Pro: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wik.ipedia.Pro community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wik.ipedia.Pro Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wik.ipedia.Pro Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wik.ipedia.Pro work, make sure to include citations with links on Wik.ipedia.Pro: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wik.ipedia.Pro community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wik.ipedia.Pro Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

We hope The Wik.ipedia.Pro Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wik.ipedia.Pro Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- NQ (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have lodged a request for mediation on the J. Ralph page here.

I have lodged a request for mediation on the J. Ralph page here. Karst (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just noticed your edits on Laura Dekker - could you go back and add citations/references? This would help keep the article in line with WP policies. Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Amazon.com a suitable reference? --Melly42 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a book being published, it would be better to have the publisher's website. Search up the book title and see if you can find a press release/announcement from the publisher about the book and use that as a reference. MurielMary (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HarperCollins has only the new edition (2016) of One Girl One Dream on its website. But I have found another source for the book launch in November 2014 --Melly42 (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right but, in case you hadn't noticed, "F.C. Kiærskou" links to an article while "Frederik Christian Jakobsen Kiærskou" does not. Never mind, I'll use piping...just thought I should point that out to you. WQUlrich (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS, please don't move the other article. He went by "F.C." professionally. WQUlrich (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Dear Melanie, Thank you so much for creating the page on the Polish-Israeli marine biologist Adam Ben-Tuvia. He was my maternal grandfather and an amazing man, and it is wonderful to see him honored with a page on this site. He died when I was only a toddler, but his life and work has inspired me nonetheless (helped in no small part by his daughter, my mother). My family and I dearly appreciate the time and care you put into creating his Wik.ipedia.Pro article. Sincerely, Doron Rose Doron.rose (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we need to change this article with a WP:RS for the "world premiere" being 1967, and then go from there? Unless the convention is to always use year of full commercial relaese? Thanks.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 07:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: I think that you are right and that the article needs to be more objective. I'll have a go at it as soon as time allows. Clifford Mill (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it did not take long to change the tone and, hoping you agree, have removed your tag. Clifford Mill (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reinserted two links to predatory open access journals. Please don't do that. They have no functional peer review so do not meet our criteria for reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correct, only peer reviewed studies are allowed as sources for Wik.ipedia.Pro articles? And another point the study is much older than the problem you've state. --Melly42 (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Too Much (film). Since you had some involvement with the Too Much (film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about translating de:Bio's Bahnhof? I have no time today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've no time too. I will go to the hospital this Tuesday. --Melly42 (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gute Besserung! Grimes2 (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dankeschön :) --Melly42 (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gone to Earth (Barclay James Harvest album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

lack of reliable sources

While all constructive contributions to Wik.ipedia.Pro are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sikonmina (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarrail (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dana Glover (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS

While all constructive contributions to Wik.ipedia.Pro are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:A world apart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wik.ipedia.Pro under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wik.ipedia.Pro (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]