Talk:Melanie Mitchell

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Systems Low‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Women scientists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cleanup[edit]

There's a bit of puffery in the article, but let's not be too hasty with the deletion, shall we? I just tagged the statements for sourcing this week, and WP:There is no deadline. If I thought the statements were without hope of a reasonable solution, I would have left them deleted, rather than reverting and tagging them. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a link to her google scholar articles enough to substanciate the fact that she's among the most cited authors? 3000+ citations for a book is impressive...Zorbid (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. I removed the tag. Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement could - and should - be more precise about two points: first, the meaning of "most highly cited" (is that the top 10% or 5% or 20%?); and second, the group of comparison ("researchers in the USA" is not precise enough, since it is - depending on the first point mentioned - wrong, cf. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=author%3A%22Paul+Samuelson%22&btnG=Search and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=author%3A%22John+Nash%22&btnG=Search and go on with looking up the numbers of citations of every US Nobel prize laureate, Fields Medalist, etc.) Consequently, I doubt that her Google Scholar link is enough to substantiate the claim in its present form. However, since I am not an expert, I do not feel able to change it myself. 92.227.177.157 (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absent any good way of making it more precise in its claims, I've toned down the verbiage. Look better? Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. At least to me, that seems more to the point. Wish you a happy New Year! ivbauer 62.143.93.53 (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There a lot of articles on scientists who are clearly good scientists, but really shouldn't have articles on them. I think it's reaching the point of silliness. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place to post CV's. She is clearly an excellent scientist, but wikipedia simply shouldn't have articles on every highly intelligent person on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.4.50.98 (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Melanie Mitchell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140413143209/http://www.waltersorrentino.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Melanie-Mitchell-Complexity_a-guided-tour-366-paginas.pdf to http://www.waltersorrentino.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Melanie-Mitchell-Complexity_a-guided-tour-366-paginas.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]