User talk:Melcous

K3 Cine Creations

Melcous, Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at K3 Cine Creations, you may be blocked from editing. If you don't understand how wikipedia works or what the guidelines you have been pointed to mean, ask. Don't just keep doing the same thing or start pretending other editors have made the same mistakes, that's behaviour that could lead to you being banned from editing. Melcous (talk)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Melcous, Your impressive list of achievements on Wikipedia deserve a Barnstar of Diligence because you are single handedly helping to equalize the Wiki world. Thank you for your inspiring work! Bigblackbarn (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Melcous, Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Psalms, you may be blocked from editing. Evrey9 (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm Evrey9, sure you can copy the warning template I left on your page and put it here but (a) that's a Level 3 warning, given after someone has done the same problematic thing after previously being warned, which I haven't, and (b) it is specifically about adding your own opinion or original research to articles, neither of which I have done. If you don't understand how wikipedia works or what the guidelines you have been pointed to mean, ask. Don't just keep doing the same thing or start pretending other editors have made the same mistakes, that's behaviour that could lead to you being banned from editing. Melcous (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Robert Gant

Well my sources are more reliable than you think, as it comes from Robert himself. In december, somebody erased most of the informations and you didn't say anything. We are trying to put back everything in place, with the help of J2m72 as he asks us to do it. Who are you to decide if the informations are corect? you can contact him on his FB page/twitter... He will confirm. FredParisFrance (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)FredParisFrance

FredParisFrance it is not me personally deciding, wikipedia has guidelines and policies about this. The basic one being that all content needs to be verifiable by reference to independent, reliable, secondary sources, so while it may seem counter intuitive at first, information from a person about themselves is not accepted for our purposes. Wikipedia articles are not personal websites and they are not owned by the people they are about. You and J2m72 should also read the conflict of interest guidelines. As you have a relationship with the subject of the article and have been asked by them to write about him, you have a clear conflict of interest and are asked not to directly edit the article but to propose changes on the talk page instead. Melcous (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Melcous Sorry, english is not my native language. What i meant is that you can contact him to see that all the things we said are true. It's just that is is very frustrating for us to have spend so much time to sum up all the information in the our magazines and what he says on his social media network to have it erased in 1 minute. But it gave me the opportunity to read your guidelines and john and I will work harder to respect them in the future changes we'd like to make as big fans of Robert. Thanks. FredParisFrance (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)FredParisFrance

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus evacuation timeline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Melcous,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

For the feedback on Laurie Robinson Haden Thank you. I have no conflict of interest. Can i have you review draft prior publishing?Ingensol (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Chris Noth

Hi, thank you for the trimming of details. For this edit: [[1]]

• It now says: "Noth that he started taking LSD with friends at age 15" - I think you are missing "said" as the second word.
• "During a brief second marriage, the family to southern California in 1969" - I think you are missing "moved" after "family"
• You removed "before attending college the following year" from after "worked at a school for the mentally disabled" but it is in the reference

"Reality hit after graduation when Noth went to New York City with his girlfriend and worked at a school for the mentally disabled. "I was a romantic, but that job cured me fast," he says. The following year he enrolled at Marlboro..." [https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-09-29-9309290091-story.html]

• You removed "Throughout his childhood he also travelled the world with Parr while she was on assignment."
  • It is cited as an influence in a lot of sources. I can try to find them for you.

-Khawue (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this edit [[2]]

• Noth was changed to "Not" in "Not has acted in plays for La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club
• "In 2008, Noth portrayed Paul Zara, in Beau Willimon's Off-Broadway debut play Farragut North". - You took out "the gruff, razor sharp, veteran campaign manager" but I think campaign manager could be useful to describe what the character does in the play especially as it is tied to the U.S. election mentioned in the next sentence
• In the 2002 premiere of Christopher Shinn's play What Didn't Happen at Playwrights Horizons, Noth's portrayal of Peter, was described as ... - You took out "a cynical, hard-drinking, popular novelist" was taken out but I think could be useful to have "popular novelist"
• The reason descriptions of the roles were included was to develop a theme of the types of roles for overall "acting style". I added the plays and shows here and there one at a time so there wasn't a cohesive theme that I described beforehand and sorry it got a bit long. I did trim and reword a bit as I went and was going to trim again.

Thanks again for your edits. -Khawue (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Khawue and thanks for your message. Feel free to fix any of those typos or grammatical abnormalities rather than pointing them out here. In terms of content, just because something can be found in sources doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia article. Nor should details like "Before attending college" be repeated in the article - the next paragraph gives that information. I do not think the goal of an encyclopedia is things like to "develop a theme of the types of role for overall "acting style"" - that might be the goal of other types of publications but it is not ours. Better to keep things simple and focused on the topic at hand rather than adding extraneous and trivial details. Melcous (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

detailed discussion that doesn't belong here

Hi Melcous, thanks for your reply. It was "before attending college the following year", I am aware of the next paragraph which does not mention it was in "the following year". The source gives the time frame of how long it was before he went to college after living in Brooklyn. I saw "Acting Style" being mentioned in "featured article" Julianne_Moore#Reception_and_acting_style and "good article" Meryl_Streep#Acting_style_and_legacy I am aware that we should not include all information in reliable sources, I am trying to be more succinct. I think there was a blanket accusation made and kneejerk reaction that create a certain bias. I have seen other bio articles that I mention below and having read about the subject maybe I am more aware of the context of certain details included that was not yet written in the article e.g. the relevance of travel. But focusing on the character descriptions: from Featured Article Julianne_Moore#Awards_success_and_film_series_(2014–2017): "She followed this by winning the Best Actress award at the Cannes Film Festival for her performance as Havana Segrand, an aging actress receiving psychotherapy in David Cronenberg's black comedy Maps to the Stars.[128] Described by The Guardian as a "grotesque, gaudy, and ruthless" character, Moore based her role on "an amalgam of Hollywood casualties she ha[d] encountered", and drew upon her early experiences in the industry.[129] Peter Debruge of Variety criticized the film, but found Moore to be "incredible" and "fearless" in it.[130] Moore's success at Cannes made her the second actress in history, after Juliette Binoche, to win Best Actress awards at the "Big Three" film festivals (Berlin, Cannes, and Venice).[131] She also received a Golden Globe nomination for her performance.[132]" Above I noted you had "In the 2002 premiere of...Noth's portrayal of Peter, taking out "cynical, hard-drinking, popular novelist Peter", what are your thoughts now? Did you want something like "described by ..." preceding the character description? You removed "Theatre World Award-winning" from "In 2000, Noth made his Broadway debut". What do you think about mentioning Theatre World Award later in the paragraph after the reviews and also maybe in a sentence about his theatre work in the lead later on? You removed: "To prepare for the role, Noth spoke to veteran political operative Joe Trippi who managed the Howard Dean 2004 presidential campaign." I've seen it included to mentioned the preparation for a role e.g. from Featured Article Julianne_Moore#Awards_success_and_film_series_(2014–2017): "Her final appearance of 2014 was one of the most acclaimed of her career. In the drama Still Alice, Moore played the leading role of a linguistics professor diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease.[133] She spent four months training for the film, by watching documentaries on the disease and interacting with patients at the Alzheimer's Association." The playwright was a press aide to Howard Dean in the 2004 campaign and the play "centers on Stephen Bellamy, a charming, fast-rising, 25-year-old press secretary for a Howard Dean-like insurgent presidential hopeful" http://archive.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2010/04/25/playwright_beau_willimon_talks_about_farragut_north_opening_friday_in_boston/ I was thinking we can have something like, "In 2008, Noth portrayed Paul Zara, the gruff, razor sharp, veteran campaign manager for a Howard-Dean like presidential candidate. To prepare for the role, Noth spoke to veteran political operative Joe Trippi who managed the Howard Dean 2004 presidential campaign, where the playwright worked as a press aide." The phrase "veteran political operative" was a quote from the source that can be removed and can also remove "where the playwright worked as a press aide". What are your thoughts? -Khawue (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Khawue this kind of conversation belongs on the article's talk page, not here. Even if it was there, my response would be that you are pushing for excessive tabloid-style detail when multiple editors have already patiently explained to you why this is not needed or wanted here. Melcous (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Melcous Sorry if you got that impression. I am not "pushing for tabloid-style detail", I asked about four specific things in the article. Sorry if the quotes the Julianne_Moore#Acting_career seemed long, but they were there to show an example of including specifically character descriptions and awards for each of her roles (and brief mention of the reviews). The Julianne Moore article is a Featured Article so these were not considered excessive detail not wanted on wikipedia. Some people have discussed respectfully, other have made insulting comments. I asked specifically about these four things: Add the before attending college the following year as the next paragraph does not say he when he went to college. Mention he won the Theatre World Award for the role in 2000 later in the paragraph. Asking for the two roles where you deleted the descriptions if there can be a brief description of the character and of the role preparation, as you see in the featured article Julianne Moore which had these for her roles. In 2002, Peter described as "cynical, hard-drinking, popular novelist" or something shorter "In 2008, Noth portrayed Paul Zara, the veteran campaign manager for a Howard Dean-like presidential candidate. To prepare for the role, Noth spoke to Joe Trippi who managed the Howard Dean 2004 presidential campaign." I am not pushing to have excessive details, just asking what I see consistent with I have seen on featured articles e.g. Catherine Zeta-Jones, Amy Adams, etc. I've seen they usually some short description of the character e.g. occupation (unless it's a famous character in a widely known play e.g. Hamlet), any awards, and if there was something notable about the preparation for the role. I am not pushing, genuinely asking you to consider the four things above specifically and what wording you would have?-Khawue (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Khawue, again these kinds of detailed comments belong on the article's talk page, not here. Melcous (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Sure no problem.-Khawue (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

thank you

Hi Melcous Thank you for your response re David Heymann page. I didn't know how to reply on the article talk tab, so am writing here. EMMALROSS (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Cyber-Risk Quantification

I'm new to Wikipedia contributions & I don't really know how to drive things.

I have done a lot of work on the Cyber-Risk Quantification page & it is no longer the junk page it was before.

Can someone please get-rid of the "This article has multiple issues" banner because it vomits on all the effort I have put into it.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber-Risk 1968 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cyber-Risk1968 unfortunately no, I'm not willing to remove those maintenance templates, because the issues they point out have not been addressed. The big one is that most of the content of the article remains unreferenced - there is still only one footnote. All content in wikipedia articles should be verifiable by reference to independent, reliable sources. So that template should stay until that issue is resolved. Similarly, proper referencing would help with the question of notability, which has still not been clearly established. The edits you made have unfortunately added a whole bunch of content that is not written in the style used here - it reads like an essay and it appears to contain original research, neither of which is ok in an encyclopedia. Melcous (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing to add correct ping of user Cyber-Risk 1968 Melcous (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

OK Melcous, I give up, you're on your own ! .... The Cyber-Risk Page, like 99% of Wiki pages, can remain as total junk.

Well done at driving away someone that is an SME in the subject area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber-Risk 1968 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please explain

Hello Melcous, Can you please explain why you removed my edits to Stacy Schiff's Wikipedia page? The content I put in is factual, and I added the proper citations to back that up.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth01240 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Elizabeth01240 and thanks for your message. The problem was that the content did not appear neutral. I can see you have removed the wording "universal acclaim", that was one of the problems. (Firstly because you as the editor cannot say that - even if it were actually true and you had read every review ever and they all said it was brilliant, that would be consider original research so you would need a source that actually used those words. Even then, it would still likely be seen as non-neutral/puffery). Similarly, a phrase like "among many other publications" is the kind of padding that resumes use, not what should be in a neutral encyclopedia article. Just name the important publications that the article has independent sources for. I would also question the quotes from The New Yorker and Simon Winchester - what is their purpose in an encyclopedia article? They read like the kind of thing you would put on a blurb to try to entice people to read the book, and that is not our job here. The second quote is particularly problematic because you are saying someone is predicting something, which may or may not actually be the case. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Melcus, about a week ago I added a piece of information to page: Fabrizio Cerina about the opening of a new hotel in Milan, Italy. I noticed you subsequently deleted that information together with a few more lines (which were existing BEFORE my editing). Being new to Wikipedia it is possible that I made a mistake. Apologetic. But I'm also afraid I damaged other people's previous work. Just for me to understand, what was wrong with my editing? I thought it was well sourced: https://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/01/06/news/cipriani_ristoranti_milano_palazzo_bernasconi-245072068/ and https://forbes.it/2020/01/07/il-gruppo-cipriani-sbarca-a-milano-a-palazzo-bernasconi/ and http://creditdesalpes.com/index.php/cipriani-milan/ What am I supposed to do now? Help appreciated. Regards,David T Cohen (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message David T Cohen. The edits I made were to remove content that was not verifiable by reference to reliable sources. (Basically this means all statements/paragraphs need to have a footnote to an independent source that confirms the claims made). These are core policies of wikipedia - all content should be sourced to independent, secondary sources and if it is not, it should be removed. This was also explained in my edit summaries. In terms of what you should do next, I would recommend you respond clearly and carefully to the questions others have raised about your potential conflict of interest and whether you are editing in the course of your work before you do anything else. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I gave that article a little haircut and removed anything unsourced or promotional. It looks ok now. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Alda Facio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Special rapporteur

Elizabeth Broderick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Special rapporteur

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hope all is well

The good news is that editing Wikipdia is a COVID-safe activity, when done inside! I hope you are well and safe during this insanely crazy time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ThatMontrealIP, appreciate your wishes and I hope you are doing ok too. It is a good time to have a nice safe indoor hobby like thi :) Cheers, Melcous (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For wielding a necessarily sharp scalpel and using it well. And with gratitude for the many times you've come to my assistance. Thank you. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Update

Hey Melcous, Thanks for welcoming me to the Wiki community! I've revised my additions to the page Colin Tilley and included a cited link to the MTV VMA's website. I hope this will suffice as proper citing, and wanted to make you aware of this slight change when/if you come across my edits again! Thank you! MarkMayr (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks MarkMayr, yes that is properly cited and useful. Feel free to ask if you have any questions about editing here. Cheers Melcous (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Paul_Allens

Melcous, I noticed today this editor who has been making seemingly small additions to various articles that he feels should be improved with the words 'the', 'a', and 'an'. Problem being, just as often as not, the improvements actually move the grammar in the article backward. Should something more emphatic be done to curb this user's impulses? - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

New to Wiki - Question about Conflict of Interest ?

Hello -

I am new to Wiki and made updates to this page (Marc David Lewis) several weeks ago. I noticed that the last revision I made was taken down due to a perceived conflict of interest ? I saw Dr. Lewis speak in New York two years ago and think he is doing incredible work around addiction, a topic I am fully immersed in for a documentary project I am producing. I felt it was terrible that his Wikipedia page was so outdated so I made a whole bunch of updates. I plan to do similar updates for other thought leaders in the addiction field as part of my on-going work and research. I do not understand why my updates for Dr. Lewis were flagged for conflict of interest ?

I do not know Dr. Lewis personally, only through his books and seeing him speak one time. Could you please let me know why this was flagged ? I am confused. Want to ensure that I am using the platform appropriately but was disappointed to see that the work I put into the page was taken down. Appreciate that this type of oversight is part of the Wiki platform but do not feel that it applies in this case. I just want to ensure that people who are looking for this information can access it. Thank you.

Citizen Ink (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Citizen Ink and welcome to wikipedia. Your edits were not reverted because of conflict of interest, there was already a conflict of interest tag on the article due to it being apparently created by Lewis himself. As my edit summary stated, your edit was reverted because it made a number of changes that go against wikipedia's guidelines including the addition of external links to websites within the article which are not allowed; the use of unacceptable references such as linked-in which is user-generated content; and commentary which was not neutral such as "user-friendly" (which is an opinion sourced only to his own book). And yes, it is always a bit suspicious when an article that has been flagged as having conflict of interest editing previously is the first article edited by a brand new editor. I would suggest you take some time to read through wikipedia's core principles as well as the conflict of interest guidelines, and you might consider making much smaller changes to articles as you learn how things work here, or suggesting changes on the article's talk page if you think there are glaring errors but are unsure how to edit in a way that abides by the guidelines. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for clarifying Meclous, much appreciated. I am learning. So, in terms of getting the edits restored that were not in violation of Wikipedia's core principles or guidelines, do you recommend I submit them via the talk page, or should I go ahead and make a new round of updates and ensure I am doing so within the guidelines? Would love to hear your thoughts before I do so. Thanks again for clarifying, very helpful.

Citizen Ink (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Citizen Ink, as above once you have read through the COI policy carefully, then if you are able to say that you don't have a conflict, you can edit the article directly (if you do, you need to use the talk page). But I'd suggest smaller edits to start, working on one clear issue at a time, and making sure it is in accordance with the guidelines. These are much more likely to "stick" and also show that you are taking the time to learn and collaborate with other editors. There is plenty of work to be done here, and it sounds like you have a lot to offer, but taking it slow at first to build up your knowledge of the style and requirements is a really good way to go. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Copy loud and clear Melcous, thank you so much. Citizen Ink (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Kareem Mohamed Abu-Elmagd

Hi @Melcous, I wanted to let you know I made revision to Kareem Mohamed Abu-Elmagd and removed the advert tag you placed there a while back. Would appreciate if you could take a look and give feedback. Best, Pratat (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Pratat, your edit is definitely an improvement, however the style of the article is still advert/promotional like - having a list of "notable achievements" is not standard for biographies, that section should be rewritten as prose with clear explanations and secondary sources. Melcous (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

thx, will handle it. Pratat (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)