User talk:Melcous/Archive 11

Hosein Khajeh-Hosseiny

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

I have unreviewed a page you curated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSD R3

Hi Melcous,

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks EC

Undid revision 852226697 by Eco-climber (talk)

No WP:ELs within article text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Woodruff

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

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

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

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

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

June backlog drive

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

New technology, new rules

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

Editathons

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

The Signpost

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

---

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

Citizens for Global Solutions

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

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

Corrections on David Williamson Shaffer page

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

Dmitry Volkov

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

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

I keep correcting the page you continue to edit.

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

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

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

Alex Gurteen page

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

David Watkin death

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

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

Long time my sandbox Wikipedia page not reviewed?

Hi Wiki team,

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

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

True Tamplin for deletion

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

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

Jane Hillston

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

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

Puritans under King James

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

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

Puritans under King James

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

First, Puritan27, I assume this is a reply to Drmies's comment above rather than to me, but it is unclear. You have now had exactly the same kind of things said to you by a number of different editors. You have not taken the time to understand how wikipedia works, including the reliance upon reliable, secondary sources, the neutral style of writing, and that there is no place for original research. Nor have you sought consensus but have instead been consistently condescending and rude to other editors. We have no idea who you are or what your expertise is, and likewise you have no idea what our expertise is (although some of us have a long track record here that would give you some clues if you bothered to look). You also need to understand that none of the articles you have contributed to are "yours" and everyone is perfectly free to edit them at any time. You have been given a final warning about your behaviour on your talk page, so for now I will simply say this, please start discussing the content of articles on their talk pages with other editors (civilly) and do not leave any further messages here. Melcous (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Duncan Watts

Thanks for leaving up most of the refs. Perhaps your comments and mine will lead someone to write a better discussion in the heart of the article. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 13 September 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with the tab?

Hi. Please tell me how can I fix the bug at the table "Thanked by:" at my user profile? I don't understand where the bug is. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think I fixed it for you Bbarmadillo (hope that's ok!) I don't actually understand what the bug was either - just deleted and replaced the |- between those two entries so I'm assuming that even though it looked right there was some kind of character error in there. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi from USA

Dear Melcous: THank you for your edits to Wayne Meyers' page. Only one point I am going to reverse. You noted that the names of his children (Amy, George, Daniel, and Sara) is "unsourced." I worked with Waye and Esther for 32 years and I am a close friend of the family. I know all four of his children and I know his grandchildren. I am not sure what you would wish for me to add to let you know that these are in fact the names of his children (in birth order). I suppose it could be found in public records and I suspect it will be on the official obituary - which when I spoke to Esther 2 days ago had not yet been written. But I do assure you that their names are Amy, George, Daniel, and Sara. Best wishes, Aileen Marty MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorAM (talk • contribs) 01:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi ProfessorAM you will see that I have reverted your addition with an edit summary noting that wikipedia works by including content that is verified by reliable, independent sources. First hand knowledge is not acceptable, and in particular the names of non-notable living people should not be included without an independent reference. There is no need for the names to be in the article. Melcous (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

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

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Updating with changes in employment status and adding URLs.

Hi. Last week I tried to update the page about me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jensen to reflect the fact that I retired from teaching. I also wanted to add a URL where people can find my writing archived. http://robertwjensen.org/ I understand the policy about not allowing the subject of a page to edit. Can you advise me on how I should request those changes be made? Thanks. Robert Jensen, Sept. 18, 2018 RobertWJensen (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Philip M. Epstein

Hi,

I'm not quite sure why I have been having such a difficult time indicating that Philip M. Epstein has made significant contributions to family law in Canada by citing notable cases.

I am a law student, with no affiliation to Mr Epstein.

Please let me know the best way to restore the notable cases section without having it taken down by you.

I understand that it may read to you as "resume like content," but I assure you that within the context of family law and Mr Epstein's legal career, it does not.

I appreciate your response and diligence to his page.

(SamPereiraTo (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)).

Thanks for your message SamPereiraTo.I removed the content for two reasons, as briefly explained in the edit summary. The first is that external links are not allowed within the body of an article. The second is that this is not part of his notability: lawyers represent people in cases, that is their job. Linking to a bunch of cases that simply have his name attached as one of the lawyers involved does not make him notable in regards to them. If, for example, there were reliable independent secondary sources pointing out that the fact that he was the lawyer in a particular case was in and of itself worthy of comment beyond him doing his job (I don't know, perhaps for example, if he personally came up with a novel argument that he was credited for in future cases, or if his personal background and circumstances became a factor in deciding the case) that might be a different story. But as it stands, the notability of the cases does not have anything to do with Epstein being involved in them. Melcous (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Melcous

I understand the issues you have pointed out but still, Mr Epstein is worthy of comment, and I can provide reliable independent secondary sources that meet the threshold test you have presented me.

For example in the Annual Review of Family Law, the first place family lawyers turn to when researching an issue, drafting an agreement, framing an argument, or tracking the latest legislative developments", the editor, James G. McLeod, illustrates Mr Epstien's worthiness-for-comment as stating the following:

I wish to once again acknowledge publicly my reliance on Phil Epstein’s weekly newsletters as an inspiration as to what issues should be the subject of discussion, in order to advance family law in a consistent and socially responsible fashion. As he has for decades, Phil provides the ‘true north’ for the compass which guides lawyers and judges to get to the ‘right’ decision.

I do not want to list all of Mr Epstein's cases on his Wikipedia page, as I agree with you, this is not appropriate.

I want to list only the cases that Mr Epstein has argued that have genuinely influenced the area of family law in Canada, and will ensure that they have reliable secondary sources and commentary to illustrate their noteworthiness.

I will work with you and other editors in the Wikipedia community to justify my edits and ensure they are not taken down.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks.

A brownie for you!

:) Sungame31 (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Review on Olusegun Mimiko page

Hello Melcous!

Thank you for your review on the page 'Olusegun Mimiko'. I spent a lot of time rewording portions of the article so I'm a bit at a loss for what to do. Please can you advice? Also I am still in the process of editing the page, and amongst the other sections I've got written for inclusion, includes one on criticisms. I'm wondering if including that section now would count towards toning down the puffery. Thanks! Wikkyexpert (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I've done as you asked. May I now post the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publicist01 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I am Scott Parker. I just chose the name Publicist in the beginning because it seemed fitting. Just trying to put in information that a director or casting director would be interested in. Nothing nefarious.  :)

COI on an article I wrote

Hi Melcous!

I'm still working out how to message on Wikepedia but it seems like I've figured it out! Thank you for reviewing my article on Saeed Zahedi. You are right in that he is a relative - I was not fully aware of the COI guidelines! I made the page as a Father's Day present and he had no knowledge of its creation until it was made. I have tried to be as objective as possible and source appropriately however please do remove whatever you feel is necessary. I do apologise for not being aware of this policy and I appreciate you educating me so that I can slowly get the hang of editing and using Wikepedia effectively!

Kind regards,

Daniel Danielzahedi (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Melcous,

Thank you for your suggestion for the article on Saeed Zahedi. I have made corrections but I've kept the COI template message. Please feel free to make any additional suggestions/edits needed if it needs more objectivity for the template message to be removed.

All the best,

Danielzahedi (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Danielzahedi, the best thing you can do is probably to declare your conflict of interest on the talk page, then the template can be removed from the article itself. There are still issues with content on the page that is not correctly sourced - the provided sources need to actually verify the statements made in the article, otherwise the statements should be removed. It does not matter what you know about the person, wikipedia works by only including content that can be backed up by reliable, independent sources. Melcous (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please give your advice

Dear Melcous, I kindly ask you for your expert advice on Ken Banks article. You worked on it before and know the subject well. I asked for several changes to it using COI request form and got a very strange reply. There is a Cambridge Judge Business School website that says “Ken Banks, who was appointed Visiting Fellow in May 2018, is a British award-winning social entrepreneur, mobile technology and global development expert with an undergraduate major in Social Anthropology with Development Studies”. When I asked to add this fact to the article, I got a the reply from the reviewing editor who said that “the provided reference does not state that the subject was appointed Visiting Fellow of the Cambridge Judge Business School per se”. What is wrong with the reference provided? It is the official website of a business school that states that Ken Banks is their Visiting Fellow. I am really puzzled. Please share your thoughts. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

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

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

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Samah Jabr

Hi Melcous, And thank you for reviewing the 'Samah Jabr' article. I see that you cancelled all of the last edits. About the 'peacock' wording: it seems to me that the previous version, which you republished, is less neutral that what I had proposed. I did refer to the 'Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch', and will gladly make any necessary change, but could you please be more specific as to the 'plenty of peacock language remaining'? About the new content: I added some new citations everywhere it was asked. The one new paragraph ('Ken Loach') is sourced to an official website. I am confused as to how these could be considered promotional. About the infobox: I thought it brought no useful information, that's why I deleted it. I am a newcomer to WP, and am in the process of learning. Any help welcome. Thanks in advance. Dlf081117 (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Dlf081117 Hi, I did not revert all of your edits, just two of the four. It is better if you can make a series of small edits so that if reverts need to be made it is not such a large amount of content. Infoboxes are standard in wikipedia biographies. There is a parameter to add an image which you can do rather than replacing the whole thing with the image which is not appropriate. The whole tone of the article needs to be made neutral, so for example removing wording from the current version like "in addition to" and "has made herself known", as well as unsourced statements like "she is one of the outspoken voices ... she shares her expertise" and "Her contributions aim at exposing the reality ..." and "she is committed to the an ethic of responsibility" etc. These need to be linked to reliable, independent sources (and still written neutrally) or removed. It would also be helpful if you can clarify whether you have any connection to the subject of the article. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Melcous, And thank you for your quick answer. Duly noted about the amount of edits, and will definitely be careful about this. The 'peacock wording' is also clearer to me now. Will modify this ASAP. But I still do not understand why, for example, the latest citations were cancelled. They precisely aim at properly sourcing the data of the article. Is that because they are from Arabic sources ? I may be unaware of a WP policy here. As for the 'Ken Loach' part: it is indeed in favor of the article's subject, but properly sourced. Again, would you please clarify how this could be made neutral? I'll try and edit step by step so you or other reviewers can delete inappropriate edits more easily if needed, and it is also easier for me to understand what is being "targeted". Regards. Dlf081117 (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Dlf081117 I didn't have any problems with citations, but they were made in the same edit as the other problems which again is why one thing at a time is often a better way to go, especially when you are starting out. There is no problem with sources in other languages being used. Melcous (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Melcous, A renewed 'thanks' for this useful clarification. I've made new edits, trying my best to take your directions into account. Minor edits and additions to start with, plus an attempt at 'unpeacocking' the wording of only one paragraph for now — waiting to see if I'm heading in the right direction with this. Looking forward to improve this article as it goes. It is challenging... yet quite fascinating! Regards. Dlf081117 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Melcous, I would be grateful if you could give me some feedback on the latest edits, and indicate if that's going in the right direction. Whenever you get some time... Regards. Dlf081117 (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Melcous, is there any chance you could tell me if my latest attempts are going in the right direction with making the article neutral ? As always, any help would be welcome! Dlf081117 (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Adlard Coles Nautical page

Hi Melcous,

You flagged this entry as having some content that read like an advert. I have edited the page, but not removed the flag you placed on it. Could you take a look when you get a chance and see whether you think it seems less promotional now?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.220.130 (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Re. October 2018

Thanks for feedback. Have returned to this page after years neglecting it and am learning all over again, trying to update it over the weekend. I had issue myself with some of the things you noted; just haven't finished yet. One thing I haven't remembered how to do yet is save my work without publishing the page. Will take the time now to look it up. Appreciate your efforts, as I do want all to be correct. Should have important additions/deletions done within 24 hours.Dljnobile (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tapestry Inc.

Hey Melcous, I saw you took down my article and reverted it back to the orginial stub. Would you mind giving me more detail in your feedback as to how I could possibly fix my article? I was confused when you spoke about the "notable people" section not having a citation or any source to back it up. The link next to the heading provides that information. Please let me know what you think and thank you for taking time out of your day to help me help this article. Thanks!Luciusap (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Luciusap thanks for your message. The first thing to note is that it is much better if you can make a series of small changes, focusing on one thing at a time, and make sure you are using the correct formatting and style for each, rather than a wholesale change to the article as you did - this is much less likely to get reverted, and also means individual edits that are problematic can be changed rather than the whole thing needed to be started again. There were some problems in your use of referencing for example - references do not go in headings, but rather a reference should go after the piece of information that it verifies. Adding a list of names of people who are not notable is not helpful either. the name of the CEO might be helpful, but a general guide is that other people should have their own article before they are name dropped in an article for no other reason. Thanks Melcous (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Nisha mandani

Hi melcous i dont know where m making mistake i posted my biography on sandbox but it got deleted please guide me where m going wrong as i followed all the guidelines i didnt promoting any organization or business , its all about me .they told me to take a reference of pamela C Rasmussen but her biography is same like my biography . please help me out where m going wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishamandani786 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Nishamandani786 As the message I left on your talk page explains, wikipedia is not the place to write about yourself. Melcous (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

this is Nishamandani786 Please help me out

Wikipedia is not a page to talk about ourself i did not understand this line. Can you please explain what should i write on the wikipedai. what is wikipedia is for . please help me out

Nishamandani786 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so there is not anything you 'should' write here. It seems that you have confused it with a social network, or a place to write about yourself, which it is not. You can read more about what wikipedia is here. Melcous (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Big Picture Learning Article Removal

Hello Melcous,

My name is Andrew, I am the writer of the Big Picture Learning article that was taken down. Thank you very much for your input, I will revise the article and send it for review like you asked. I am wondering, though, what exactly you meant when you said that it was written like a personal essay and that the organizational structure is not what it is supposed to be. A response citing specific sections of my article would be greatly appreciated but if you would rather just send me a good example article that would be great too. I am really looking for any kind of additional input that can guide me in the right direction as to how I should write this article.

Thank you Abm15101 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Award

Hello. A truce? Souclem (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Alimuddin Zumla

I've activated page protection requiring confirmed user accounts before this page can be edited. It's clear there's sock puppetry going on. Hope this helps. -- Longhair\^talk 09:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't think of asking for that :) Melcous (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Spycoops

Hi there,

I am user Spycoops and I believe you have noted my contributions, and I wish to clarify.

I am independent scholar who has spent 30 years in the study of Oscar Wilde. I am a long-standing member of the Oscar Wilde Society in London, a founding member of the Oscar Wilde Society of America, and a former manager of the Victorian Society In America, I lecture on Wilde and contribute to academic journals including The Wildean and Oscholars. All of this work is entirely nonprofit. I also have a noncommercial website and blog devoted to Wilde, in particular his visits to America (the Internet's leading resource in this respect).

I have put in thousands of hours totally unpaid and I have never linked to a profit-making site and I have no personal interest in any profit-making site in connection with my contributions to Wikipedia. My aim is simply the dispersion of knowledge and allowing others to benefit from my study as a legacy. Further, I have benefitted so much from Wikipedia that I wish to give back in addition to the occasion donations I make towards fundraising.

Please look up my contributions in this light and forgive any indiscretions which are usually a result of not being very well versed in Wiki-editing.

I am not even sure if this is the way to correspond so I hope you receive this message.

Sincerely,

--Spycoops (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Spycoops — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spycoops (talk • contribs) 00:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Saintignon family tree

Hi there. im a member of the De Saintignon family and my editing of that article is to reflect the accuracy of the family tree and update it as needed. so I understand how you might see that as "self-promotion" but it is my family and I would love if you wouldn't edit me out as I try to improve its accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicente Saintignon (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Vicente Saintignon Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place to keep your own family tree up to date. Names should only be added to the article if they are notable and can be reliably sourced, which the names you are adding are not. Even if those two criteria were met, you have a clear conflict of interest so should not be editing the article directly at all. Please stop. Melcous (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

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

Hello Melcous,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

BLP Sourced

Melcous,

I've been helping edit the Lauren Hoffman page for some time now. I decided to retire because this really the only project that inspired me on this site, and I think I've been about satisfied with my contributions. I noticed the template you added. I noticed other editors have made some changes. I just wanted to help out - leave it in respectable condition. First I want to know if I made a mistake? I'm the one that added a few of those recent sources. I was just trying to be fair with the whole consensus, try to be a good movie editor... So did I improperly source anything? I want to keep the wiki world happy. Is there any last adjustment I can make before retiring? Can you help me get that right? I noticed libelous and or contentious attributes are associated with that template. That is not my intent. Could you help me understand a bit more please? Anon-Nyctophilia (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I made a typo in the subject of the discussion. I meant to say "BLP sources". Anon-Nyctophilia (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I meant to say,"wiki editor." I'm good at making typos... Anon-Nyctophilia (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I seem to remember getting defensive with you over me not understanding how things work her on wikipedia. I didn't realize you were trying to help; neither did I realize you were a professor or academic. I'm not trying to be a sycophant - I'm just apologizing. I didn't understand. I've been reading a bit more. I dont know if I should delete my recently added sources or leave it for other editors. I want to retire but I can fix it in any way, would you help a bit? I'd rather not retire as an editor without learning or fixing any mistake. Anon-Nyctophilia (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Melcous, I noticed an IP [1] reinserted information to the article that someone claiming to be Hoffman's assistant [2] had previously inserted. I reverted back to the last clean version so hopefully that helps with the peacock etc. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

biohackerDB is a community.

Please do not delete the site https://www.biohackerdb.com in DIY-biology as it is a community for biohackers. (This is where the article comes from). A simple view of the site, you can verify the intention. I understand your point about links and spam, but this is not spam. It is in accordance with this movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biohackerdb (talk • contribs) 08:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Melcous. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent removals of the edit of Les

Dear Peyla,

You have reverted the recent editions of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_de_physique_des_Houches by user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philippe_Peyla without comments.

As stated on the discussion page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%C3%89cole_de_physique_des_Houches, he does not understand your edition that neglects his works, removes interesting additions coming most probably from the Frenchspeaking edition of the page.

Could you please explain your editions and motivations ?

Thanks, npettiaux (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Npettiaux and Philippe Peyla: As I explained in my edit summaries, the changes were reverted for a number of reasons including that the editor appears to have an unexplained conflict of interest; they added numbers external links into the body of the article which is not ok; and they added red-linked names of people with no evidence of notability, which should not be done. (They also used non-standard formatting and non-neutral language). If the editor wishes to make suggestions on the talk page as to what should be changed, that would be quite appropriate. Melcous (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks melcous for your comments. I think Les Houches school deserves a more detailed page on wikipedia in English. Too few people are contributing. Indeed, Mr Peyla may be linked to the school as director, but as far as I see, he manages to do the editing very constructively and with many links internal to wikipedia. Please consider his efforts before removing, fixing the non neutral language rather than erasing the content npettiaux (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Npettiaux, I think the best and most constructive thing he can do is abide by English wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and propose changes on the article's talk page, which can easily be done using the Template:Request edit. Melcous (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

profile page and picture

hi,

last year I tried to create my profile page and uploaded a picture: smitchacha.jpg it got deleted

My name is Smit Chacha and I am an author and I wish to create a wikipedia profile page under my name so far I have published 3 books here is a link to my google page: https://g.co/kgs/B4s7j3

I want to write a short description of my self that will be written at the above link

I also want to include a profile picture on wikipedia

waiting reply Smit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitchacha (talk • contribs) 18:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Smitchacha and thanks for your message. Wikipedia is not a social network or a place to write about yourself. Writing about yourself is also against wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. If you are genuinely notable, then someone else will write about you here sooner or later. Until then, there are plenty of other places you can create profile pages, like social media or your own website, but that is not what wikipedia is for. Melcous (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

New York City Gay Men's Chorus

Dear Melcous - I went to the organization page to find much of the previous material has been removed. This material was information about the organization and their history. I am at a loss as to why this was removed. I am the official historian/archivist and updated the page to show our history for those interested in the organization. This included season recaps, concerts and listing of persons who have performed with us.

Please advise as to why this information was removed. Thanks. Jim Vivyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim10010 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Jim10010, you can see the specific reasons the content was removed in the edit summaries, but overall it was because it was unsourced, promotional and not neutral, and not notable content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal website: people who are interested in your organization can go to your own website if they wish to learn about your performances and you can keep as much content there as you wish. You are also requested, as an editor with a conflict of interest, not to edit the article directly but to propose any changes on the talk page instead. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Michael Levitt. Changing your own Wikipedia Page

Hi Melcous,

This is Michael Levitt. I got your email about me editing my own page and it raised some interesting questions related to this post-trust era. I can understand one should not edit ones own page anonymously, which is why my ID is MichaelLevitt99. On the other hand, there is erroneous information about me that only I (or someone that I instruct can fix). What am I to do? As I am sure you know only too well, the fact that something exists on the web (for example the link that I am employed by Zhejiang) does not make it true. Equally, while applaud Wikipedia's policy of links, not every thing is online. For example https://marriedwiki.com/wiki/michael-levitt says that I am happily married. Searching more carefully, and limiting date range, I found this link that mentions Rina's death https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/sunday-times/20180701/281762744999866 This was an interview I game at Lindau this summer. Thus, I imagine that I have web links to justify everything that I write and will do so. What is someone who less computer savvy than I to do? Will what Wikipedia writes became the de facto truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaellevitt99 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Michaellevitt99, thanks for your message. In future if you feel there is a mistake or something missing from the article about you, what you should do is suggest a change on the article's talk page. This means it can be reviewed by an editor without your conflict of interest who can then make any appropriate changes to the article itself. The easiest way to do this is to use the Template:Request edit. I'm sure as an academic you can appreciate this kind of 'peer review' even if it can feel onerous to the person concerned. Also note that if content cannot be verified by reliable, independent, secondary sources, then it should not be in the article at all. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Abbey Cooper

Abbey is sited by IAAF (International governing body) as changing her name - https://www.iaaf.org/athletes/athlete=265120. Please be more careful when you revert edits and look into the sourced material. Very Respectfully, GoOKC

GoOKC: Your edit was reverted for a number of reasons, one of which is that you did not provide that source in the article as required. You also continue to make large changes and mark them as "minor" which is not ok, and you added other additional content in the same edit that was likewise unsourced. If there is a name change, then the name of the article should be changed and this should be correctly sourced - your best course of action is to propose the change on the talk page so another editor can review it and do so correctly. Also, please "sign" your posts on talk pages by including four tildes (this symbol ~) at the end. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Mike Turzai

Melcous. I don't understand why you reversed many of the changes to Mike Turzai's wikipedia page. First, much of the information I changed were falsehoods or misleading. Secondly, you deleted the last election's results which I sourced to PA Dept of State.

Mikebarley79 As the notes on your talk page and in the edit summary clearly state, your edit was reverted because you appear to have a clear conflict of interest and should not be editing this article directly. Furthermore, your edit removed content that was independently sourced in an apparent attempt to remove perceived 'negative' content from the article. If there are things in the article that you believe are incorrect or need updating, then you should propose changes on the talk page, most easily done using the Template:Request edit. When you do so (or leave any comment on any talk page as you did here, you should make sure that you "sign" your post by adding four tildes (this symbol ~) at the end). Finally, if you are editing as part of your employment or in any other way being compensated for editing here, you are required to make a disclosure to that effect. Melcous (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Melcous,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I Am Richard Kaufman

Hi, I am the subject of the Wikipedia page, Richard J. Kaufman. I occasionally edit my own page to correct errors. That is what I did here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Kaufman (talk • contribs) 03:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Richard Kaufman, thank you for your reply. As the message on your talk page says, as the subject of the article you should not be editing it directly, but rather should propose any changes on the talk page so they can be reviewed. This can most easily be done by using the Template:Request edit. Please also "sign" your posts on talk pages by adding four tildes (~ this symbol) at the end. Thank you Melcous (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

your note to me about removing templates

Hi

The reason I took the template down is that you only added this when I tried to add a new section which you then instantly deleted. So it refers to me but I am

1) Not a major contributor 2) Have not contributed before this 3) Have no connection with the subject 4) Have no real interest in this except for the article I was putting up -my article

The template is supposed to be there is its a major contributor and a major contribution and my section that doesn't even exist is

your generalizing 

Because its about me I am emailing you to remove this. Thsi was not there before I tied to join Wiki and now look at how my first contribution went. This was my first attempt at wiki and you have made it, unfortunately very unpleasant and nonconstructive. I wont be using it much again and I wont be helping with funds. I wonder how many people are discouraged by these kind of actions

Please remove this template as it does not apply to me and I do not satisfy the definitions

If you do not I would like to take this further with a high level Representative as I believe, in this instance your actions are not in following the rules and I am happy to demonstrate my details and provide more information if that helps

Thank you Dudeoftheuniverse (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The template does not refer specifically to you. As noted on the article's talk page, it refers to a large number of single purpose editors who have been editing and maintaining this article over a number of years since its creation. Melcous (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Rajasekharan Parameswaran cleanup

Hi. I found Rajasekharan Parameswaran article at the Cleanup project and improved references a bit. The style however is very promotional even after some cleanup. Would you be interested in improving it further? --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas Melcous


Hi Melcous, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
May next year be prosperous and joyful.
   –Scopecreep ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 10.43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Rich Kids of Tehran

Could you please stop editing and removing articles regarding the Rich Kids of Tehran - This is not promotional editing and all relevant sources have been provided.

Would be thankful

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Kamani1980 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Peter Mel

This is an unpaid voluntary request per the COI policies to enhance Wiki articles in good faith.

I am requesting the warning of promotional narrative be removed from the header of the page. I have combed through the text and removed all of what I believe is promotional, cleaned up the narrative, and reformatted the article to be more legible and precise.

Thank you so much Melcous!! . Jay Bestille (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Tamara Broderick

Hello! The majority of sources on the article about Tamara Broderick are written about her, by trustworthy universities or grant providers? She's also an award-winning professor at MIT? She seems to be becoming very successful, and is still early in her career.Jesswade88 (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Jesswade88 this does not make the secondary, independent sources which is what we are looking for here. Please also see WP:NACADEMIC - do you think she meets the criteria there? Melcous (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Melcous Yes, I think she meets them, or I wouldn't have made the page. She's a 'rising star' in AI research and, despite being very young, has achieved widespread recognition. Jesswade88 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Jesswade88 the question is which of those criteria does she specifically meet? I'm not seeing the independent sourcing to meet #1, and none of the others appear to apply. Melcous (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Dylan McGrath

As far as I know, Wikipedia is not in a hurry. So I have restored (and sourced) most of the awards. I added one award (a less important one) as I could not conform it. Added a new award, with source. What you did, was not serving Wikipedia... The Banner talk 01:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

And no, this was not an article of my hand although I did write a lot about Michelin star-awarded chefs and restaurants. The Banner talk 01:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Knock Knock (company) tag removal request

Hello Melcous,

I am a COI editor looking to clean up the artice Knock Knock (company), which has tags on it that were placed by you in July 2018. Can the tags be removed from the article? In my opinion the article has been cleaned up and is now written in a neutral point of view. Thank you. Darby657 (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you teach me more about what I did wrong?

Hi. You sent me a message asking me to remove offending links on my personal page. You referred me to WP:UPYES and WP:UPNOT for explanation. I went and read that content and could not understand what was considered inappropriate. I have taken out all but one link on my page, so I think I'm probably good, now. But could you enlighten me about what was undesirable, so I don't make the mistake again? (My user page is only a handful of sentences. I created it so I could disclose a COI, so I mentioned the companies and nonprofits I'm affiliated with, and linked to their web pages for the convenience of those who would be evaluating my COI. Is that what was not kosher? It is not called out in WP:UPNOT...) Daniel H Hardman (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)