User talk:Melcous

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For doing the heavy lifting required to clean out the PROMO and source that ancient BLP. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Chloe Shorten

Hey what's your issue? No need to be arrogantly placing a notice on my talk page! Sportstir (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sportstir Nothing arrogant about it, it's a standard warning template used to advise new editors of key guidelines here that they may be unaware of if they have not followed them. Please assume good faith. Melcous (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Style

I noticed you have been editing Jason Fader. Thanks for your shared interest in making wikipedia a better source of information.

Some of your edits seem to be based on your personal style which not everyone would follow. That is not why I am posting on your talk. I have a different style but I would not call your style a "mistake". Your style is yours.

I did notice, however, a comment from you that reads: "please read previous edit summaries and take the time to ensure you do not keep making the same mistakes"

As sportstir pointed out, sometimes your tone does not demonstrate respect for other users and does not seem to reflect an assumption of good faith for other users. I have included the link to assuming good faith again even though you cited it before. Please understand that because someone writes differently, they are not making a mistake. Even if they are making a mistake, they could be a new user who needs coaching not degrading. Please assume that they are writing in good faith and you just have a different perspective, level of experience, or writing style.

Please consider how you might judge others with an open mind and helpful tone as you consider your edits and their comments.

Again, thank you for your time and enthusiasm in editing articles.Breamk (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Breamk thanks for your message. I'm not exactly sure what tone you are referring to, as the message from the above editor and the Jason Fader article are quite different things, the former being in reference to a standard template so there was actually no 'tone' of my own in that. I apologise if it was unclear, but in the edit summary you refer to I linked to WP:SURNAME, so the issue wasn't one of personal preference or style but was an attempt to point the editor again to the WP:MOS, but I'm sure I could have made that clearer. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Preity Zinta Image

Hi Melcous,

We've taken permission from permission (permissions@wikimedia.org) and it's clearly mentioned that we can use. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psheela (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Psheela I'm sorry, I don't know anything about the issues with wikimedia. I reverted your edit because it didn't link to an actual picture file just a red link which isn't helpful for readers. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Maintenance Template

Melcous, I updated a page that had incorrect information and removed the "maintenance template" to the page. It listed the person as the author of a book and it was incorrect. Badalola (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)badalola

Hi Badalola, yes the changes you made within the article are still there, I just reverted your removal of the templates about notability and conflict of interest editing because you did not explain why you think those issues have been resolved and the changes you made did not specifically address those two things. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

ok makes sense. The page template set up is a little odd considering how much information is added to it. Would condensing the information be a solution? Badalola (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

Dear Melcous: I am sorry that my recent edits lacked neutrality. I am not a zealot. I was merely attempting to add references to a text that had been criticized for lacking them. I will try again. Best, --Bobskol854 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobskol854 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bobskol854 and thanks for your message. No worries, I think we are getting there - I have tried to make comments in my edit summaries explaining why I have made the changes I have, the key thing is to let the facts speak for themselves rather than needing to include adjectives like "highly successful" or "major" - in an encyclopedia these often end up looking promotional. It would be great if you could use the edit summary feature too when you make changes so that you can explain why you are doing what you are. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

MTM

Hi I edited the content so that it is not promotional, you ask for relevant references and I provided news articles/books/government papers among others so at this point I feel like you flagged the page without making sure that the content is unbiased. I also already tried to disclose the conflict of interest possibility both on my user and talk page yesterday and my previous account got blocked without even giving me the possibility of proposing changes through requesting edit as you suggested.

Honestly it is very discouraging and I don't know what you expect from me as I feel like I'm gonna get blocked AGAIN if I try to do anything else. There is clearly no conflict of interest and if you were to read the content you would see that. Would you like me to just delete the published works section since it is the only one that could come close to promotion? Sara94500 (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sara94500 thanks for your message. Your previous account was blocked because it was against the username policy, as the notice on the talk page says. So creating a new account for you personally was the right thing to do. However, there are still a couple of important steps to abiding by the conflict of interest policy. Note - this is not about the content added to the article, it is about your relationship to the subject of the article. You need to disclose this on your (new) user page, see here on how to do so. Note that if you are editing this article as part of your job or receiving compensation in any other way, you must make a specific 'paid' declaration before you do anything else.

Once you have made the appropriate disclosures, the next step is to suggest changes you would like to see to the article on its talk page, providing reliable, independent sources to verify them. It is easier if you can do this one key idea, or one section, at a time, rather than making huge changes to the whole article as you have previously done - this is much more likely to get reverted because there is no way to separate out what is helpful from what is not. The easiest thing to do is use the Template:Request edit.

I know this can seem onerous, but while wikipedia can be edited by anyone, there are some key guidelines to help ensure that this is done in a neutral way, so for those who have a personal connection to a subject they want to write about here, that means disclosure and review. If you have more questions as you do this, just ask. Melcous (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Chase Atlantic

Hi there, I am happy for you to make any language or style changes to the updated page. Please do not return the page to the former edit as there are many factual inaccuracies. Thank you for your time!

Re endorsements

Hi. I noticed you deleted the endorsements info on the page of Jolina Magdangal citing it is not encyclopaedic material. But i've been seeing a lot of pages that contains the same materials.

See Judy Ann Santos#Other activities#Products and endorsements. Also Regine Velasquez#Other activities#Product endorsements

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsingko (talk • contribs) 04:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:USE - just because it is used on one article does not make it okay. The sources used for many (such as facebook) are also not acceptable, see WP:UGC. Melcous (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Rowan Holmes-Smith

Hi there, I appreciate your input and suggestions to add more sources and references. I had already disclosed the COI on my user page per Wikipedias guidelines, I've updated this again in case it was incorrect the first time. I am not being paid to write this article. I am happy for you to fix up language or style changes, But please do not delete large portions of this page again thank you. Your actions are very hostile, particularly for a new user. I've noticed others have the same issues. Perhaps in the future, you could suggest some edits before going about deleting large portions of peoples work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowanhs (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Rowanhs, as you have a conflict of interest, you need to use the articles for creation process and submit the article for review by other editors rather than moving it into the article space yourself. The changes I made were in accordance with wikipedia policy and the content I removed is the kind of content that will result in the article not being accepted. All content must be verified by reference to reliable, independent, secondary sources. Content should be written neutrally and it needs to be focused on the topic of the article, so large sections about other topics as you currently have in the draft are not acceptable, nor is resume like content like lists of professional associations and career events. Finally, my actions were not hostile, they are exactly how wikipedia works - once an article is in the main space of the encyclopedia, it can and will be edited by anyone at any time; the article is not owned by anyone, including its subject. You should also read this page about why it is in inadvisable to be writing an article about yourself here at all. Melcous (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

My last edits to the Size2Shoes Wikipedia page were very factual and should not have been deleted

I received a message from you about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines when I made two original edits to the Size2Shoes Wikipedia page. I then went back to write new edits that were very factual, and was careful that in no way my new edits should be looked at as conflict of interest, they do not "promote" the band any more than the other information listed about the band in the article! There are many of Size2Shoes achievements listed in the article, just because I want to add some more background information about their achievements does not mean I am making an edit that violates any conflict of interest. For example you deleted my footnotes where I added that they played several times for Steven Spielberg in 2009. There is no reason this type of information should be deleted any more than information that is already in the article, for instance that they appeared in Steven Spielberg's 2011 film War Horse. Why was that information allowed and the what I added not? I also added footnotes of the article linking Mayo News where the information can be found. I also received no second notification from you after my second set of footnotes were also deleted! Please explain to me why the second set of information I added was deleted when it is not more "promotional" than other information already in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InspireEdit (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi InspireEdit, thanks for the message. Firstly, adding a second set of footnotes using the reflist template was incorrect and mucked up the formatting of the article - if reference templates are used correctly then they will all be captured by the existing reflist template at the bottom of the article. In terms of the content you added, simply name dropping what famous people have said about a band is the kind of information that belongs on their own website in order to promote them rather than in an encyclopedia. The source you added does not give any context for the quotes either, which I think is problematic. Melcous (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Melcous, you refer to "name dropping," but that doesn't apply for me adding information that Size2Shoes played several times for Steven Spielberg in 2009. That is no more "name dropping" then the information that is already in the article about them being in his movie War Horse. I am asking you about the second set of edits that you removed, not the first. The first time I had added the quote when Steven Spielberg said "Size2Shoes...fits all!" I am new to Wikipedia but an experienced editor and writer, so I could take your point for not including that quote and deleted it. I then added brand new edits that I stand by that there should not be any issue with the content. I will look into the quotation guidelines, but it did add my footnotes in order with the footnotes that were already in the article. InspireEdit — Preceding unsigned comment added by InspireEdit (talk • contribs) 00:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

InspireEdit, as I said, your second edit added a second reflist template which created problems with the formatting of the whole article. I understand this was a mistake, but fixing this was one of the reasons I gave for reverting in my edit summary. With regards to the content from the Mayo News article, to me that still reads very promotionally and like a press release - the opinions of other well known people are the kinds of things a band would (and should!) say about themselves on their own website to encourage people to listen to them, rather than objectively verifiable facts like their appearance in a movie. Thanks. Also, when you engage on a talk page, whether another editor's like here or the talk page of an article, please "sign" your posts by including four tildes (~ this symbol) at the end. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about UNC Gillings page

Hello,

I'm a communications specialist at the UNC-Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health. Recently, I asked a colleague to make updates to this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNC_Gillings_School_of_Global_Public_Health) because much of the content is outdated, erroneous or incomplete.

I saw today that you undid those changes, citing COI. Could you please help us get oriented to Wikipedia by sharing the guidelines for editing pages so we can try again? If you have specifics about which changes were out of bounds, that would be even more helpful -- I'm not sure what to do differently in the future, because her edits were based on facts, history and posted School value statements. Not trying to be snarky -- just confused!

Thank you so much, Jennie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.170.249 (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jennie, and thanks for your message. As editors with a conflict of interest, you are asked not to edit the article directly, but instead propose changes on its talk page. This is most easily done using the Template:Request edit. A few things to keep in mind when you do so:

1. All information needs to be verifiable by reference to reliable, published, sources and preferably independent sources, so not the school's own website for example.
2. All content needs to be written in a way that is neutral and non-promotional, so wording like "The Gillings School is home to about 1,600 diverse, creative and dedicated students" or "the Gillings School has been committed to groundbreaking research, exceptional teaching and dedicated service", which were both added by Kgoracombs, is not acceptable - that kind of wording belongs on your own website, not in an encyclopedia.
3. Similarly, Mission and Values statements should not be included in encyclopedia articles
4. External links or links to outside websites should not be used in the body of an article, which is another error made with the edit. This won't be as much of a problem however if you are just suggesting the proposed changes on the talk page, as an independent editor who reviews them for you can use the correct formatting if they add them to the article.
5. Finally, when requesting edits on the talk page it is much better to make one distinct request at a time rather than trying to 'fix' the whole article in one go. So saying "Please change X to Y because ..." with a provided reference is much more likely to receive a clear answer and be a change that can be quickly made.

Please keep asking here or on the talk page if you have other questions. The pages I have linked to in this reply are all places where you can read more information about the guidelines and policies I am referring to. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Hi there. Responding to your edit on the Teenage Cancer Trust page where my ‘good faith’ contribution was reverted by you. Just wondering what your reasons were for this and perhaps what a contribution that isn’t assumed in good faith would look like. No criticism, just curiosity. Cheers :)