User talk:Melcous

My recent edit was removed

I have created a reference topic on "Significance of Cyber Threat Intelligence" & it's been removed due to some reason. I have defined everything clearly on mail, pls check and let me know where exactly I did wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeshek0419 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Abeshek0419: The link you have repeatedly added has been removed as spam. Wikipedia does not exist to advertise your platform, you should use your own website for that. As you have acknowledged that you not only have a conflict of interest but work for the subject of the article, I have left a paid editing notice on your talk page. Please note that complying with this is not optional, it is a condition you agreed to when you created an account here. Melcous (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting for going through a very important article of "Transparent Hands Foundation" USA

Well done mar. I really appreciate your effort, please can you assesse this article? Draft:Transparent Hands Foundation Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting for reviewing an article of newly appointed emir

Well done mar. Recently a new emir was appointed in one of kingdoms in Nigeria and I noticed that the article is not on wikipedia. I request you to look into the article, thank you. Draft:Kabiru Muhammad Inuwa Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Appreciation

Well done for good work. And thank you for making wikipidia unpromotiotional environment Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edit has accidentally removed reference sources in use

Thank you for your contribution to improve Abdullah Al-Salloum, an article that I've created. Your recent edit has accidentally deleted reference sources -^18, ^19 and ^20- that are already being used in different locations in the article. Please help retrieve those sources back. Thank you again. --Aaehasa (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a bot that will retrieve them in due course. Thanks Melcous (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Assistance

Please mar. Can you describe me how to upload an original image on a page? Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No sorry, this is not something I am familiar with. You can read this simple tutorial. Melcous (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi gorgeous

I don't know if you know but you have just vandalised one of the most important page in the history of my school. t kakaliki. We students welcome changes and criticism but not complete deletion of a work we put in months of our efforts. Gros sauvage blanc. Please do realise that not all african countries have well access to webpage creation like you people do. Pitin, gros pitin. Thank you for your understanding and wish you and your family well. Fr moi croir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.111.169 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Melcous, do you know what this user is talking about? I blocked them for insulting you and Arjayay. If you're wondering how, look up "pitin". Sorry. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding a recent edit

• • Hi Drmies I suspect it was because both Melcous and I removed a load of unsourced/promotional additions from Sir Abdool Raman Osman State College - Arjayay (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    • That's crazy. They were complaining about lack of internet access in Africa, while editing from Scotland and Canada? Drmies (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Hello, I am the editor from Canada. First off, I am genuinely sorry for the Scottish editor's insults towards Melcous and Arjayay - you definitely do not deserve such remarks and this never should've happened. Let me explain the situation. A number of people put in weeks of effort to edit the high school's page and I'd assume most editors were extremely frustrated upon seeing that the page is now almost empty. A significant portion of the material was removed due to a lack of explanation/context, which is nowhere the fault of international readers. For example, a 'Laureate' is regarded as being among the highest academic achievements in Mauritius, which is a fact yet undocumented on Wikipedia. With the majority of those reading this article expected to be from Mauritius, all the editors probably saw no use in specifying such information. However, this eventually led to other editors (Melcous and Arjayay) classifying the said information as being unsourced content, for which I don't blame them. I would come to believe the Scottish editor had a bout of infuriation, which led to their remarks for which I am again deeply sorry. However, I need to highlight that the deletion of the page's content was drastic and apparently done without prior knowledge of Mauritian culture and without recognizing that many aspects of Mauritius go undocumented on Wikipedia. For this, I would request editors to inform themselves more before bringing such changes. Sincere regards, editor from Canada.
      • I guess that's one thing. But content on Wikipedia simply needs to be verified; that's really all there is to it. Undocumented facts need documentation. The other thing is, the article was way too promotional in all kinds of ways, and you can't just restore all of it--and remove the advert tag. WP:SCHOOLGUIDE is useful here. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the input. I won't be having time to edit the page in the near future but I appreciate the feedback. Closing this thread and cleaning Melcous's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.66.112.206 (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies and Arjayay. And to the IP editors, please do not remove other people's comments from talk pages, that is not ok (unless it is clear vandalism, which this was not). Melcous (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Submission - Speedy DeletionPhilWeinman (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Melcous,

I hope that you are well.

I submitted an article for review yesterday and I have been notified that it has been speedily deleted due to being considered as 'unambiguous self promotion'.

I completely understand Wikipedia's stance on self promotion. The article I submitted was admittedly about my own career journey, however I was sure to write the article in a purely factual and encyclopaedic way. I considered it to be notable as I included almost 30 citations and references from secondary sources and reputable Australian publications that supported the content.

I am an Australian businessman with a passion for entrepreneurialism. My career and business successes have been well publicised in the media for several decades. I am aware of other wiki pages for business people and entrepreneurs such as Edward Pretty, which details their career and business journey's. I personally don't see any difference between those articles and my own and am therefore unsure why my article has been deleted.

I would be open to your feedback and expertise to assist me with getting my article published if you could be so kind to respond I would greatly appreciate your assistance.

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin K. Sovacool

Dear Melcous, I am not a frequent user of Wikipedia (to be fair I had never done modifications in the past), but I recently found out that the majors of study of Prof. Sovacool had been omitted except for his PhD. I see absolutely no reason for this information to be discarded (even if working as an energy expert today, he would probably prefer to leave it implied that his previous studies were in engineering or science fields which is not the case), and thus added it, which I consider important (and it is the norm in academia to be transparent about what you studied and where your expertise comes from).

I have seen the modifications I had made had been deleted, I didn't understand what happened and now I just discovered the "View history" section, and it seems that you are the one who deleted that. If this is the case, could you please tell me why ? In case, it's because you were unsure of the veracity of this change, Prof. Sovacool's CV is available on the university he is working in : https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/benjamin-sovacool(fca10105-c4eb-4f0f-99a7-a354a8a8a47a)/cv.html?id=55652968

Thank you, Best, 2A00:F90:FEB:AF00:69B2:96B3:D6CA:D35 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Cédric

Thanks for your message Cedric. In the edit history, you can also see my edit summaries, which note that the content added is not in the sources cite, which was the reason for the removal. Usually, sources should be independent and secondary, but for information like this a primary source would be acceptable. If the information is added back, a source should be included and properly cited. Thanks Melcous (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Melcous, thank you four your quick response. I edited once again doing what is (I hope) a proper job sourcing. Best, 194.230.158.199 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Cédric

Why are you undoing all my edits?

You of all people should know how much research goes into this completely voluntary site. So, why does it seem that you are obsessively undoing every single edit I write? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi RedDirtRedBird, as the message I left on your talk page clearly said, your edits were reverted because they added unsourced content to the article. You then editing the article logged out and calling my edits vandalism is inappropriate: see Template:Uw-login as to why you should not make edits both from an account and an IP address, and see WP:Vandalism about what is and is not vandalism. If you cannot provide reliable, independent secondary sources for content, it should not be added to the article. Continuing to ignore these guidelines can be considered "edit warring", which can eventually lead to you being blocked from editing here. Thank you Melcous (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you get to determine what is and is not reputable. The sources I found were not any less than those found on other pages. You deleting literally everything that I edit is vandalism. This is a VOLUNTEER job. Treat it as such and stop being a bully. RedDirtRedBird (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It’s not fair that you’re destroying this page just because of my recent edits. Some of the edits I’m noticing were not even done by me. You can’t tell me that things such as where a person grew up is listed on some news source. It’s in a bio and that’s where I got some info as does anyone on any page about a living person. How do you have so much time on your hands to bully new users? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I get that you are frustrated RedDirtRedBird, but exaggerating doesn't help: I did not delete "literally everything" that you edited. And I have no idea what you mean about "the sources you found" because the edits you made to Amelia Presley that I reverted did not include any sources - that is the issue. Your focus on this particular person causes me to wonder whether you have a connection with her that is making it more difficult for you to be objective? Melcous (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have a connection with her but didn’t realize I needed to!! I’m just trying to edit based on information I researched and it’s frustrating when it just gets deleted every time I try. No don’t really understand any of this. What is a reputable source? Her biography and news from her website doesn’t count? Where do you find information on any of the subjects then? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, RedDirtRedBird. No, it's a good thing that you don't have a connection and are just trying to research - that is what we are looking for here. But wikipedia looks for what are called reliable, independent, secondary sources - so published sources that are not connected to the person, for example books or newspaper articles. If you can find information in those places that is the best bet. And you can see here WP:CS about how to cite sources properly. Wikipedia can take a little while to get used to, so if you read through some of the linked guidelines that should help, but also please ask other editors (including me) if you have questions along the way. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(pinging again due to a typo in my above ping RedDirtRedBird) Melcous (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my frustration. Thank you for the information. I’m kind of skeptical to move on to any other articles because I feel like I’ve called so much attention to this one that you’ve now deleted a lot of this poor girl’s page and added notifications at the top. Looking at other celebrity Wikipedia pages, I’ve noticed that the sources are no different than the ones that were on this one. Aside from finding a link to her birth certificate, how does anyone prove someone’s birthday with a “reputable source”? They don’t. But Wikipedia allows it. And the Finnish heritage stuff...she literally speaks Finnish, but what newspaper article talks about that? None that I can find. It’s just knowledge you gain from learning about this singer. But Pamela Anderson is also Finnish and there are no newspaper links cited to back that up. These are just things that I feel are being overly scrutinized and I think it’s valid information and defines the artist. That’s actually how I became interested in editing this page first at all. Heritage fascinates me, and that’s what I’d like to say. But how do I add it when there aren’t any newspaper articles about that specific topic. Just her public DNA file which is evidently not “reputable”. RedDirtRedBird (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and I am sorry this experience has frustrated you RedDirtRedBird. With the notifications on the top of the page, the hope is that this is actually a good thing, as it can attract other editors to help fix the issue. My advice would be that sometimes it is better for an article here to be more succinct, and my guess is that with the level of fame/notoriety someone like Pamela Anderson has, that kind of information has probably been included in articles, books, profiles etc whereas for others you are correct, it just might not be able to be sourced. My encouragement to you would be to start editing other articles with one edit at a time, either fixing mistakes, or making sure what you add is properly sourced. It can take awhile to get used to wikipedia's style (and quirks!). 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! It definitely is a lot to learn! RedDirtRedBird (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

zox shows

I toured with the band, and was at all of these shows. They opened for all these acts. The tour history, cited, verifies it. Two primary sources -- what more can I say? Accurate Sea (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Accurate Sea, and thanks for your message. The goal in Wikipedia is independent, secondary sources, so no, sorry, your own personal knowledge is not sufficient - information must be verifiable by other editors. It would also be good for you to read the conflict of interest guidelines: as someone who toured with the band, these would likely apply to you and so the best thing you can do is suggest edits on the article's talk page, rather than edit it directly. Thank you Melcous (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I was literally *on-stage* for ALL of these concerts. I can 100% confirm, swear to the Lord, that these concerts occurred. Further, the band's website clearly lists all the concerts: http://www.zoxband.com/#tourdates I am the primary source (the individual who was there), and if that is not sufficient, you can ask the band's booking agent, www.caa.com. This is not a conflict of interest. Also, if you'd like to call me, i can tell you in detail about every single one of these concerts in question. 16:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry Accurate Sea, but you are misunderstanding what wikipedia is and how it works. That kind of first-hand information belongs on the band's website or on a fan site then. As an encyclopedia, the goal here is to record what reliable, independent sources have said about a topic. And if you were on-stage with them, then yes, the conflict of interest guidelines here apply to you. Please do not continue to edit the article with this kind of content. Melcous (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. To satisfy Verifiability, according to Wiki guidelines, I have “presented what the various sources say”, by adding the phrase “According to the band’s tour page” to the sentence with citation #1. Remember that “Citations should be evaluated on the qualities they bring to the article, not on the quantity of citations available,” according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue

Although possible, it would be unrealistic—-and not appropriate according to Wiki guidelines involving excessive citations—-to provide citations for each concert associated with each band in this list in question. For example, here are a handful of articles that provide evidence of a few bands (ZOX having opened for) on this list in question: http://www.pennyblackmusic.co.uk/magsitepages/Article/5942/Zox https://www.union.edu/news/stories/202010/they-played-here-live-music-union http://www.lawrence.com/events/2006/oct/04/flogging-molly-zox-bedouin-soundclash/?et=15946 https://www.punknews.org/article/27671/tours-streetlight-manifesto-zox-dan-potthast-usa https://www.newtownbee.com/04302004/if-youd-like-to-check-out-one-of-the-bands-that-will-be-at-ozzfest-this-s/ http://www.rirocks.net/Bands/zox.htm

I could keeping listing, as there is evidence online, from firsthand news articles or concert listings, of every band in this list.

The inline citation, helpful as it is, is actually not required in this case according to Wiki guidelines, as the list of bands in question is not any of the following: A direct quotation, a statement that has been challenged, a statement that is believed is likely to be challenged, or contentious material about living persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations

Further, “the Good Article criteria merely state that inline citations are required for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons”.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria This list does not fall into those categories.

In a more general sense, musical acts that another musical act have opened for do not require inline citations, as they are deemed general knowledge to the music-going public. As cases in point, none of the following opening acts mentioned below have citations (its possible to find hundreds if not thousands of un-cited Wiki entries just like these):

Foo Fighters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_Fighters “Foo Fighters undertook their first major tour in the spring of 1995, opening for Mike Watt.”

The Who https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who “This included a return visit to the Isle of Wight Festival (at the Seaclose Park in Newport) on the 11 June opening date.”

Aerosmith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosmith “These shows were opened by Joan Jett.”

Aerosmith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosmith "Other collaborations, either by individual members of the band or by Aerosmith as a whole, have included Alice Cooper on his Trash album, Guns N' Roses (who opened for Aerosmith during their 1988 tour and had covered "Mama Kin" on their first release) and B'z."

In sum, even though citations (which are readily found online) are not required for this list of bands in question, the single citation listed is sufficient to provide verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.179.110 (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a great breakdown!  :-) If you want citations for the approx 42 bands listed here, we can provide press clipping URLs, however this would clearly represent Citation Overkill, in turn causing a credibility risk, according to Wiki Guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_overkill Specifically, 42 citation would represent "misuse to prove an obvious point, and needless repetition." For example, the band, signed to a major record label and booking agency, played 250 shows per year for 10 years--so it would be expected that they would have opened for these types and quantity of acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Sea (talk • contribs) 19:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited M Jonathan Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Trivial Edits

Wanted to find out what trivial classifications are in each edit because I realized that you deleted a section of some updates we are conducting on African Athlete and what they are doing outside of the continent after their life as competitors. Advice. Kakra Payin (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Kakra Payin. Given that he is notable as an athlete, I would expect the article to focus on his athletic career, as that is what the reliable, independent, secondary sources that wikipedia is based on will focus on. This is not the place to list everything about him - social media or personal websites can do that. So, for example, the fact that he has gone on to self-publish some books might be worth a sentence (if it can be sourced to an independent reference that notes that rather than the page for the books themselves), but I would not expect it to be more than that as it is not what he is known for, nor is it independently notable. Melcous (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, I am learning how to work on the athletes pages on Wikipedia to help clean up African profiles and information on Wikipedia. There are a lot of information on Wikipedia about Africans that are organized by people with limited reference details about Africans since they don’t even know where to look for such information. I am trying to learn more about Wikipedia in the process as well. Kakra Payin (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Jesse Vint Edit

Hi Melcous - thanks for your feedback. I noticed your note saying you edited because some references were not legitimate, and I will go ahead and double check them. But I noticed you deleted the entire additional content, including the legitimate info with correct references. Just to clarify: did you delete the entire thing based on a few poor references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolmanj (talk • contribs) 07:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Dolmanj, the problem with making one very large edit as you did is that it is very difficult to separate out what is useful from what is not. It is much better when you are starting out to make smaller edits at a time, making sure to provide reliable, independent, secondary sources for any content added. It would also be helpful if you can clarify, do you have any connection to Vint yourself? Thank you Melcous (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Re list to prose

Hello Melcous, I want to follow-up re your guidance to shift to prose format on Marver_Bernstein#Academics -- certainly not difficult to execute but as I’m working toward being able to advise other new editors as well, would you happen to know of or have a favorite exemplar for comparison? (BTW, I’m still working to rediscover the reference as it came from an obscure archive.) Would you similarly advise prose for Marver_Bernstein#Memorials speakers' list? As I note in-line, the symposium speakers’ list makes more sense to eventually exist on a page for the symposium itself. The current content inclusion here is intended only as a transitional step, giving other editors a chance to infill, enhance, and move. So I'd be interested, from a process standpoint, of how that ties to current formatting choices. Many thanks for your feedback and improvements. Zatsugaku (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Stop trolling and harassing me!

Robert Obojski page was created by me for Bob. He was a neighbor and close friend. I was his care giver. I was his healthcare proxy and followed family instructions to remove life support. I arranged his funeral. GustavM (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

GustavM, I am neither trolling nor harassing you. As I have now referred you to multiple times, wikipedia's core guidelines say that content is required to be verifiable by reference to reliable, independent sources. Information that is gained by an editor personally does not meet that criteria, and is "original research" which is not ok here. You should also familiarise yourself with the conflict of interest policy which suggests that you should not be editing this particular article at all. I understand that you are grieving and emotional about this, but that is exactly why wikipedia has these kinds of policies, so that editors don't get involved in topics which they will find it difficult to be neutral about. Melcous (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why the reversion of the carefully composed article on Mary O'Donnell Fulkerson?

Hi Melcous,
this page is in the process of being co-created with much love and diligence by some of Mary Fulkerson O'Donnell's closest professional collaborators, students, etc. As such it represents a legacy of someone who has been instrumental for contemporary dance in Europe. We are doing this by following the basic idea of Wikipedia. We did not attack anyone or make anyone look bad. A lot of data had been carefully assembled by today, plenty of independent sources quoted.
Can you please state on what base you interfered in this process, without any previous statement or communication, no marking in advance which you could have done as a gatekeeper, to properly state your objections and give us time to learn?

Of course erring is humane, so if there was a mistake, so be it, let's correct it together.
Sincerely,
Thomas_Kortvelyessy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.157.130.6 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, and thanks for your message and explaining the editing, which does make sense. Can I ask you and those collaborating with you to please read wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, which suggest that rather than edit the article directly, people with a close connection with the subject of an article should instead use the talk page to suggest changes. It is understandable when you know someone, particularly someone who has recently died, that you want to write about them in a way that honours them, but that is not what wikipedia is for. This is an encyclopedia not a legacy or memorial page, and as such content should only be added if it is verifiable by reference to reliable, independent, secondary sources and written in a neutral way. Much of the content added was not sourced, nor written neutrally. An experienced editor, ThatMontrealIP, has already started doing some clean up on the article, so my suggestion is that you use the Template:Request Edit on the talk page and one of us or another independent editor can review your proposals and make appropriate changes. The best way to do this is to make one suggestion at a time; there is no rush. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

like resume & more categories

Hello, Apologies that the page I created (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilok_Chandra_Goel) appeared like a resume. I have made some edits and request you to please have a look and remove the like resume tag. If you still feel it is not neutral enough, could you please make some suggestions. Having looked at many other living people wiki pages, I find this page fairly neutral now.

I have also added more relevant categories to this article. Please amend this tag too if this is up to your satisfaction. Thank you for keeping tabs on Wiki content. Best wishes, Batsman2 (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A question about credits

@Melcous: thanks for pointing me to the policy on credits, particularly regards images in the info box. Actually hadn't read that before. So, it's good there's no credit there. Is it okay to have a credit in a caption when an image is used in the body of an article?The Little Platoon (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries The Little Platoon - my understanding is that the same guidelines would apply within an article, an image licensed to be used here should be freely available and so no credit is necessary or desirable - the purpose of the image is to illustrate the article content. It would only be the person who took the image is in some way significant and/or notable that perhaps a link to them could be worthwhile. Thanks Melcous (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Melcous understood, and thanks for taking the time to explain.The Little Platoon (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message

Hi Melcous, thank you for leaving your message on my talk page. Apologies for my recent edits that were not relavant. Thank you. Arun prasad pandurangan (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Help Publishing

Could you help me by any chance please, publishing the page I made, it just says draft and I don’t know how to publish it. Thanks so much Derrick roper (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Derrick roper, no sorry I will not help you publish an article about yourself - that is not what Wikipedia is for. See WP:AUTOBIO for why it is strongly discouraged. Melcous (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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 Wikipedia 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) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ZOX editor

Melcous, I reverted the COI editor's addition of badly sourced promotional material to ZOX. I'm not sure if any friendly admins are watching your page, but if they are, :user:Accurate Sea needs a cooling off block for edit warring, using Wikipedia for promotion and refusing to understand our rule on COI and sharing accounts. Or perhaps just a pBlock for ZOX would do it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ThatMontrealIP, appreciate the help! Melcous (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

We appreciate your attention to this page. Please note that no facts in the posting are "promotional" in nature -- they are historical, evidence-based details. As stated prior, if you feel 41 citations for the band list would be necessary, they all can be provided. (As explained in Melcous' Talk, however, this is not necessary within the rules of Wiki.) In terms of edit warring, it goes both ways, remember! All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Sea (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Responding to message

Hello Melcous,

I am trying to respond to a message that left on my page. I am not getting paid for my efforts although I do know the person I wrote the article about. I just believe that she should be known within the database. I am new to this so don't know how to do a lot of things but I feel very attacked by this whole thing when I haven't tried to anything with malice or for personal gain. I especially didn't appreciate the words of the user Deb who I feel has attacked my charter and made assumptions about me which are untrue. I would really appreciate it if we could work this whole think out and my work could be restored.

Many thanks, Emma Dil (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Emma Dil and thanks for your message. It is quite common for editors starting out here to feel overwhelmed, and even as you said "attacked". Please be assured that this was not the intention, and the messages left for you by myself and the two other editors were not suggesting any malice on your part, but instead a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. It is not hard to google your connection to the subject of the article, and the wikipedia guidelines are clear that interns are considered employees, so it would seem clear that the paid editing guidelines would apply to you. So the two options you have are (1) to create a draft article and use the WP:AFC process to submit it for review; or (2) to suggest that someone else write an article using the WP:RA process. Please ask if you have any questions about either of those. Thanks Melcous (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Eva Sajovic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eva Sajovic, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Sajovic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Berkshire Grey Draft

Hi Melcous, I originally published the Draft:Berkshire Grey article, but it was moved to Articles for Creation due to a conflict of interest. It has remained in Articles for Creation unreviewed for the past few months. Are you able to review the draft again for it to be published in article space? If not, could you point me to someone who may be able to help get the review process underway? Thank you. Toddlute (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Toddlute, that's how the process works - as the note on the page says, you need to be patient as there are a large number of pending submissions for articles. And unfortunately as a paid editor who should have used this process in the first place rather than publishing the article yourself, asking volunteers to "bump you up the queue" is unlikely to get a positive response. There is no rush, it will happen, you just need to wait. Melcous (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Melcous,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

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

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your unfailing discernment and intelligence, not to mention willingness to assist. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You have deleted my (accurate) updates...why?

I have just noticed that you have undone some recent edits to my profile. These are all factually correct and important. Do I really have to find someone else to paste them in on my behalf?! RachelSkinner (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, RachelSkinner, as the message I left on your talk page outlines, under wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines you are asked not to directly edit an article about yourself or your company, but rather to request edits on the article's talk page. You can most easily do this using the Template: Request edit. You should also point to reliable, independent, secondary sources for content you are proposing be added. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Everything is Going to be Alright, Martin Creed, 2015.

Thank you for all your edits and contributions this year. I wish you a happy holiday and good health! Possibly (talk)

Social Enterprise vs. Actress

	Social Enterprise vs. Actress
	Hi Melcous! Just wondering why you keep reverting Nanette Medved Po's article to highlight her being an actress vs. someone wanting to talk about her social enterprises. I think all the updates being made reflect accurate information about her because most recent articles really discuss her passion for her social enterprises. Fuegoph (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Fuegoph. The kind of content that has been added to the article reads as promotional rather than encyclopedic. Wikipedia does not exist to reflect what someone is "passionate" about or "wants to talk about", but rather what they are notable for according to independent sources. It appears that her primary notability for an encyclopedia article is as an actress. Like many people in that profession, she has then used that platform to go on and do charitable work which is admirable and rightly included in the article, but that does not mean that the encyclopedia article about her should suddenly become all about that, or include long lists of links to every interview she has ever given promoting her work, particularly when some of those are not sourced. It would also be helpful if you could respond to Possibly's question on your talk page about your connection to the subject of the article. Thank you Melcous (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you think about this source?

I note you've been doing some great editing on a page I created. Can I ask your opinion on referencing a source? This link offers primary sources into "Graham Hill (theologian)" connections, roles, and activities with major universities, colleges, and organisations. In one sense, it is a good source of primary data from representatives from 20+ institutions. But, because it is located at the academic centre directed by the subject, do you think it's a bit compromised or promotional? What do you think about this use of this source? Appreciate your advice.

https://theglobalchurchproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Professional-and-Academic-References-2020-Graham-J.-Hill.pdf

TrekMaster1900 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi TrekMaster1900 and thanks for your message. Thanks for creating the article. Most of the editing I have been doing has been to bring it into line with being an encyclopedia article rather than a personal or promotional profile. In that vein, I'm not sure what the purpose of the source you mention above would be. The goal of wikipedia is to find reliable, independent, third party sources and report what they say about a subject. Personal references like that belong to resumes or on people's own websites, not in encyclopedia articles. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I was a bit perplexed. It could be argued that they are independent, external references to the impact of the subject's work; but because they are grouped on the website of the subject's research centre, there's a conflict of interest here that should be avoided in referencing these. They are no longer independent and third party. Appreciate your advice. Steep learning curve!

TrekMaster1900 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Improving pages

What’s the best way to find pages that need copy editing? Got some time on my hands, so I’m keen. Thanks TrekMaster1900 (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi TrekMaster1900, great that you're keen! I've found copyediting to be a really good way to get into wiki editing and learn the ropes. There is some good advice here, and you can find a list of articles that have been tagged as needing copyediting here: Category:All articles needing copy edit. Another simple way I have found is to pick a common mistake (e.g. a particular typo, grammatical or style error) and do a simple search for it - using a tilde (~) plus quotation marks in the search box (e.g. ~"alot") will help you find any articles containing that particular word or phrase. Happy editing! Melcous (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! TrekMaster1900 (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Brenda Allison in human magnetism

Why did you remove Brenda Allison She was the only black person on the list. Ankar doesn't have more clout. Have you read the Wikipedia racial bias report? Brenda All (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Brenda All:, Since you were adding a link about yourself, you might benefit from reading the Wikipedia policies on self-promotion, conflict of interest and external links. Possibly (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm here by an administrator invite. Human magnet Anun Raikar Wikipedia page has lifted 7 paragraphs and a 7 line quotation from an article in India Today about him. You possibly worry about that. Brenda All (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tsnungwe wikipedia entry

I saw your note on missing internal references for the Tsnungwe entry. I have added references. Can you give feedback? If it looks okay, please remove the caution at top of page about original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny ammon (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Danny ammon and thanks for your message. The adding of references is good, and I see that Possibly has also done some tidying up of the article. However there is still content on the page that appears to be opinion or original research. In the lead section, for example, the paragraph starting "The Tsnungwe are a peaceful people ..." makes a number of statements that are not found in the two sources cited. I also note that your user name is the same as that on sources you have added. Please make sure you have read wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines and are abiding by them. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Jenn Gotzon

Hi! I saw that you made an edit to the page and I was wondering if you'd think it would be worth nominating it for deletion. The sources seem to have been mainly promotional ones rather than actual independent secondary sources and the page seems to have major COI issues. What are your thoughts? Sdrqaz (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sdrqaz thanks for your message. It does look very promotional and I wondered the same thing. It seems that there might be a claim to notability as an actor and a couple of independent sources, so I might have a go at trimming it right back, and then you can look and see if you think it stands up or should be nominated for AfD? Thanks Melcous (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That sounds great! I'm not very sure about WP:NACTOR (given she's not even mentioned in Frost/Nixon (film)), but we'll see if it's redeemable. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sdrqaz, I've done the best I can for now. Many of the references are interviews and thus not independent, so I still have questions about notability too. However, I see that when Pratat PRODded the article in August, Donaldd23 noted that it was not eligible as there was a previous AfD discussion (2007, the result of which was delete) so perhaps those editors might also like to weigh in? Melcous (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The guidelines state that once an article goes to AfD, it cannot be PROD'd. But, it can be nominated again for AfD. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You've done excellent work there: it's starting to look like an actual Wikipedia page now. However, I still think that Gotzon is not sufficiently notable and probably a good candidate for AfD, though I don't have as much experience in the page deletion/creation side of Wikipedia as I'd like. It has been pointed out to me that Gotzon may meet WP:GNG. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Comment added 11:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Melcous; please stop removing my entire "notable collaborations" section

Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ALL of my "notable collaborations" are 100% VERIFIABLE WITH THE ARTISTS THEMSELVES Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) I've been a professional performing and studio musician since 1995, well before the internet automatically documented everything (as well as in many cases, I was part of a undocumented live performance, or I was credited only on the "hard copies" of the releases (liner notes inside records, CDs, etc) so for these reasons there may not be easily accessible (or any!) up-to-date hyperlinks for all my citations- however, this obviously doesn't necessarily mean they didn't happen! and again, they ALL did. (also, I'm not sure why you would've added "name dropping" to your edit, which besides being factually wrong, was also a little (needlessly) rude.) this page obviously functions as an online resume/ resource so of course I would include the names of all the artists I've worked for/ recorded with/ played with.Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)timo ellisTimoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Timoellismusic Editors with a conflict of interest are asked not to edit articles directly, so please kindly do not edit this article again. If you wish to make suggestions for improvement, you can put a request on the article's talk page and a neutral editor can review it. But if you simply want to add a long (unsourced) list of people you have worked with, then that will continue to be removed (and yes, it is fair to call that "name-dropping"). This page does not function as an online resume - you can create your own website to do that. You appear to have misunderstood what wikipedia is for. Melcous (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

hi Melcous

Timoellismusic (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ok- the truth is that until now I actually didn't understand how Wikipedia works, so in that context I now understand the need/ protocol for 100% validation, as well as the need to eliminate any COI's, so I'll immediately stop this "edit war". however that said, I'm not sure how that justifies the deletion of nearly all of my introductory paragraph just now, now made dreadfully out of date, + which not only did I not write originally, but also didn't edit whatsoever recently (plus, IMO it's not necessary for you to be (palpably) snarky + condescending about this, either.)

Thank you for your reply Timoellis and for understanding both the conflict of interest issue and the need for sources to verify content here. I apologise if you found my comments snarky - there are a lot of people who seek to use wikipedia to promote themselves and it gets tiresome. The fact that you have replied again and acknowledged your misunderstanding suggests this was not your goal. As I said before, you can use the Template:Edit request on the article's talk page to suggest changes (providing reliable sources for content if you do) so that the article can be updated with verifiable information. Thank you Melcous (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

thanks !

Thanks so much for this thoughtful response, and your apology- I really appreciate it- one general thing I might add is that I’d imagine that this kind of thing can get a little sensitive for some independent artists (as it just did for me), considering that the current level that everything needs to be rigorously verified at, may not just be understood as a forgone conclusion…+ especially with content created prior to the year 2000, which in the case with some of my work, may not be verifiable using today’s standards. in other words technically in many of these cases there unfortunately may not actually be Wikipedia-level “proof” available…which IMO, in our professional media landscape, one driven entirely by optics, privileges younger people, whose entire professional (and personal) lives have been exhaustively documented/ cataloged from the beginning. anyway, food for thought. PEACE / Timoellismusic (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Timo