User talk:Melcous

Hosein Khajeh-Hosseiny

Thank you for reviewing the article. I've revised, removed statements of fact lacking citations, and categorized to the best of my abilities. Notability is difficult because the subject's profession in private investment is by its nature "private" ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypressavenue (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Cypressavenue Wikipedia works by covering what has been published (i.e. made public) in reliable, independent, secondary sources. So if what he does is by nature private, then it may well be that he does not meet the notability guidelines in order for there to be an article about him. Melcous (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zvonko Taneski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks very much for restoring my little fixes at David Haigh - I bookmarked the page to go back to later, but you've saved me the trouble of redoing those copy edits (which I would have been glad to do). Thanks very much, and for catching the other issue with the page. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome Jessicapierce, I didn't want your good work to get lost! Thanks for all you do, cheers, Melcous (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Jake Brockman. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Pritam Mandal, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

_pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Jake Brockman not sure what this is about, perhaps an auto-generated message, but I didn't review the page, I nominated it for speedy deletion. Melcous (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Melcous just fyi, but if a page is currently unreviewed, and you stick a CSD tag on it (or any tag for that matter), it counts as reviewing it ; at least, the software thinks you have  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct. And I hadn't noticed before that some bot sends a message when I unreview. The guy keeps removing the CSD tag, so I thought I'd unreview it until some higher powers had a look at this. I reverted him twice by now. Seems the two brothers (mentioned in the article) work in coordination. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Melcous and Serial Number 54129: this tag removal game is getting tedious. I have AfD'd the article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: I saw that, and per MEAT, I would have no problem reapplying the tag, requesting protection, and reporting the IP for edit warring. Either that, or I will be voting Speedy delete per A7 at the AfD, I don't really mind  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I like to think that an AfD gives more complete closure, especially when recreated later. Simple G4 then. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and I regularly argue such myself—saves time in the long run. Take care, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Serial Number 54129 and Jake Brockman both for the explanations and for dealing with the problem editors. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It was...mildly epic, by the end. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

CSD R3

Hi Melcous,

I noticed that you made some CSD R3 deletion requests for redirects to Sami Shamoon College of Engineering. They were reverted by another editor, but I was just curious about your rationale. It's actually very common to have misspellings or incorrect transliterations with foreign terms: there are a lot of back translations, double translations, and other forms of misunderstanding. For example, there is an article in a source considered WP:RS that spells it Sami Shimon, because שמעון is often spelled Shimon. There are of course countless other examples. Why do you think such redirects are implausible?

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, certainly common misnomers or misspellings are acceptable, and perhaps one of those was, but when a whole bunch of redirects are created at the same time it feels like you are trying to cover every possible spelling error, which to me is (a) excessive and (b) redundant - the search function does a better job of the same thing. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with adding the link to the website that Piper wire please?

Hi. Can you explain what the problem is with my edit to improve the page?

Thanks EC

Undid revision 852226697 by Eco-climber (talk)

No WP:ELs within article text

During her sentence, the website www.thepipebomb.com"The Pipe Bomb" was set up to document her life behind bars. Eco-climber (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Eco-climber, please read WP:EL - external links (i.e. links to websites) should not be used within the body of an article. Melcous (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank u for explaining & putting in the WP EL link. Point noted.

However I believe that the link adds to the article. It is a link to Piper's official prison writing pages and also importantly has been shown to have stayed live for many years (approx 14yrs).

Therefore the link I believe is in line with WP policies on both External Links & Official Links.

WP says "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided"

WP EL says: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as... meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

EC added: ( I say that it is relevant & meaningful. But there is lots of relevant info on Pipers site including graphics & links to t-shirts, with although interesting, should not be in the main WP article because of both length & size.)

"Some external links are welcome (see § What can normally be linked), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."

EC says " I have attempted to prove above that the link is justified, especially as it is an official website of hers & also because the info adds to the WP article.)

What are your thoughts on this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eco-climber (talk • contribs) 12:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

William Woodruff

Dear Melcous (Undid revision 852130438 by Woodruff (talk) spam/self-promotion) Please justify your deletion of a bibliographic reference to a book whose subject is the battle of Anzio on a page about the battle of Anzio by an author (who died ten years ago) who took part in the battle of Anzio. A book reviewed by d'Este and Blumenson who have written about the battle of Anzio. This is neither spam nor self-promotion. Perhaps this deletion occurred automatically? Respectfully --Woodruff (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Woodruff I removed it because it appears from your user name that you have a connection to the author. Adding a link to your own work, or the work of a family member, goes against wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. If you think the link has value for the encyclopaedia (and I'm not saying it doesn't), then you should use the Template:request edit on the talk page to suggest it and then another neutral editor can add it for you if they agree. Melcous (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Melcous, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Citizens for Global Solutions

I have no conflicts regarding this organization, other than an interest in the subject. I added in "additional citations for verification" as requested at the top of the page, intending to be helpful. I understand I erred in etiquette in removing the tag, but I did not understand that it must undergo further review. That said, I think my extensions and revision of the article were useful and should be restored. PJOinDC (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely that an article that has previously had problems with conflict of interest issues would just be 'stumbled upon' by a brand new editor, who in their very first edit to wikipedia added the same kind of promotional content to that article as the previous COI editor. Can you explain that? Thank you, Melcous (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Corrections on David Williamson Shaffer page

Hi, Melcous, Thanks for checking on the edits I made to the page for David Williamson Shaffer. The edits I made were only to the Education and Career section (and the the corresponding information elsewhere in the page), and only to be sure the information is accurate. I also added one more recent major publication to the selected works and added ISBN numbers to the books in that section, again for accuracy. I of course, respect the importance of tracking COI issues in Wikipedia articles. In this case, however, the information changed is easily verified objectively -- that is, there is no particular interpretation that might be biased, and the same information is available elsewhere online. Given that, my suggestion would be to remove the COI tag. Or, of course, you could revert to a version of the article that contained the original inaccuracies and wait for someone else to make the corrections. Or just leave the COI tag there, although then I am not sure under what circumstances it would or could be removed. Or if there is some other more appropriate way to handle the situation that is fine too. I don't do much editing on Wikipedia, and was only interested in correcting the factual information on this article. So if there is or was some other way to address this, I would be happy to learn it. Thanks, Dws1d (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Dmitry Volkov

Hello. Interesting about your edit. Can you explain whats wrong with this page? What should change there? Thanks. Kedrkka (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I wait comments. Kedrkka (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I keep correcting the page you continue to edit.

I am updating the information on Ben Glucks page and you are editing out factual information. Why are you doing this? Ben Gluck directed Brother Bear 2 and you continue to remove that. why? Proeditor515 (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Proeditor515 your changes have been reverted (again) because (a) you have a clear conflict of interest and so should not be editing the article directly but rather requesting changes on the talk page; and (b) because you keep removing valid maintenance templates and citation requests without appropriately dealing with the issues they flag. Continuing to do this can lead to you being blocked from editing so please stop and take the time to read and understand the issues. Melcous (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrea Ponsi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Alex Gurteen page

Hi, I'm Sam White from Epsom and Ewell Harriers and I train with Alex at the track. He mentioned about his Wikipedia troubles. He was clearly angry about his deleted page and insisted it belonged on Wikipedia. So I thought I would give it a go as I did think he was notable enough perhaps as he as finished highly in some leagues over the years. He even wrote down info for me to put in the article. Sorry if I (or Alex) has got it wrong. I wouldn't mind just having a few days to get the article sorted out before we decided whether or not it should be kept. Thanks Epsomathlete (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

David Watkin death

Hi Melcous, Do you have confirmation or a link to the news of David Watkin's death? Arkiefan (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, which was why I reverted the IP who included it. I thought I had fully reverted but see I had not, which I have now done until a source can be found to include it. Melcous (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Long time my sandbox Wikipedia page not reviewed?

Hi Wiki team,

Long time my sandbox Wikipedia page not reviewed? Kindly review and suggest.

Thanks Parbesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParbeshMaurya (talk • contribs) 06:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

True Tamplin for deletion

Hi. Long time no see. I know that you've spent a great deal of time improving True Tamplin article. After reviewing it again I think that it should be deleted. His book is self-published, his sports career was limited to college, he is not a very popular public speaker, I don't understand how he fits WP:ANYBIO guideline. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bbarmadillo no worries, I didn't spend heaps of time on it, was just trying to clear out the obvious fluff to see if there was actually anything of substance left. I'm more than happy for you to nominate it for deletion, I'd probably lean towards delete myself. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Jane Hillston

The removal of the fact she is Head of School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh was an unfortunate mistake - the other pages relevant (e.g. University of Edinburgh School of Informatics) already show the citation Ccw34 (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ccw34 I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but if you are saying my removal of the content was a mistake on the Jane Hillston article, no it was not. Content needs to be sourced in the article in which it is included. You have restored it with a citation which is the correct thing to do. Melcous (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Puritans under King James

Greetings. I have no idea who you guys are that keep tampering with my article. It is very frustrating. Please stop it. It is evident that you are not scholars in this field of study, and you are only hindering the work of wikipedia by your obstinate attempts to control and edit others. The original article was merely 3 pages and included no citations either. Any college student or professor that teaches on the subject can see that the article is now a real historical piece that is extremely useful to readers summarizing the key events of the Puritan movement in the reign of King James. I am working on the other articles on the Puritans as well. That is one of my key fields of research and writing in Reformation history. I have not in any way broken wikipedia rules. I will gladly put citations and references to the piece when I see that you guys leave my work alone. I am teaching a class presently at the Masters level, and wanted to improve the article for my students to see the benefits of using wikpedia articles and the links. Please don't sabotage the work. You are only undermining wikipedia and its purpose to advance learning. Puritan27 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Puritan27Puritan27 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Puritan27, "Us guys" are, by now, almost a half a dozen seasoned Wikipedia editors who are trying to get you to edit this website in accordance with the rules--that information be cited to reliable secondary sources. Frankly, your comment on Orphan Wiki's talk page don't inspire much confidence, not just because of, dare I say it, a certain possibly professional arrogance, but also because you indicate that the information you added is easily drawn from "original source documents", etc. First of all, if it's easily available, you include it, with the edit. After all, other editors (and readers) can't smell where material came from. Second, Wikipedia relies on information from secondary sources. So when you say your edits were "perfectly in keeping with wikipedia rules"--that's just not true: the information was unverified, and it shouldn't be verified by primary sources. If you are indeed a world-class scholar (I don't know--you don't know who I am, apparently, but by the same token I don't know who you are), we appreciate your contributions, but they have to be done according to the well-established guidelines. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Puritans under King James

Please stop your trolling. It is clear that you don't know the subject matter here at all. How would you possibly know what original material is on this subject when you don't even know the history of the Puritans or any of the scholarship on them. It is clear to me that you and the others are just annoying vandals. Who gives you the right to control or edit any part of this article? You don't even know the subject. Are you a Professor of History and Theology on the subject? It is clear that you are not. Go work on your own articles that you may have some degree of proficiency in, and please stop bothering my work and my attempts to add to and edit this piece and get back to your own life. Puritan27 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Puritan27Puritan27 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)