User talk:Melcous/Archive 15

A barnstar for you!

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

February 2020

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

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

Robert Gant

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

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

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

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Melcous,

Source Guide Discussion

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

Redirects

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

Discussions and Resources

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

Refresher

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

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

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

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

== Chris Noth ==

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for this edit [[2]]

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

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

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

detailed discussion that doesn't belong here

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

References

thank you

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

Cyber-Risk Quantification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please explain

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

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

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

added a link pointing to Special rapporteur

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

added a link pointing to Special rapporteur

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

Hope all is well

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

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

Barnstar

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

Update

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

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

User:Paul_Allens

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

New to Wiki - Question about Conflict of Interest ?

Hello -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kareem Mohamed Abu-Elmagd

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

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

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

Melcous, made revisions. Two issues for which I think good sources can be found I left, even though the source quoted does not claim what is claimed (in a non-promotional way). Please let me know if besides the issues which I mentioned (and tagged) there still remains something to be changed. Pratat (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Anastasiia Masiutkina

Hello, please look carefully at the article by Anastasiia Masiutkina , I changed the information and deleted the sources. Tell me why is there an advertising template on it? thank. Dieskulptur (talk) , 15:41 13 May 2020 (UTC).

Dieskulptur as the template on the page clearly says, it is there because it appears the article was created by someone who was paid to do so, in violation of wikipedia's terms of service. The article has been edited by a number of single purpose accounts, some with names that clearly suggest they belong to marketing companies. Can you please explain what your connection to those other accounts and/or the subject of the article is, and how this came to be the very first article you edited on wikipedia? Melcous (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I am the manager of Anastasia. We saw this problem and decided to fix it. The article was created not by us but by someone else. Anastasia really is a very famous person in Ukraine. I removed all links reminiscent of advertisements and unconfirmed sources. Dieskulptur (talk) , 18:07 13 May 2020 (UTC).

Dieskulptur, as Anastasia's manager, you have a very clear conflict of interest which means you should not be editing the article directly. You are also considered a paid editor under wikipedia's terms of service, which means you must appropriately disclose this (this is not optional, it is something you agreed to do when you created your account here.) Please do not make any further edits until you have done this. Once you have done this, you should not edit the article directly, but you may instead make edit requests on the talk page instead. Melcous (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Melanie Johnston-Hollitt

Hi Melcous, sorry, I didn't know about the precise definition of 'minor edits', will keep that in mind in future. I have just done an addition edit to remove typos and insert citations to number of publications on this page which I did after reading your message. So also tagged that 'minor' but I updated the number of publications as per the evidence I found from 200 to 230 so should have probably not used minor. EuryaleGorgon (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, could you please explain why you have removed the section on public speaking which is entirely documentable? That did not seem out of place to me. There is similar content in the bio of other living astronomers e.g. Lisa Harvey-Smith under 'Public Understanding of Science', Bryan Gaensler under 'Public Outreach', Katie Mack under 'Public engagement and advocacy'. These were not examples of standard research conferences that were given, but significant public engagement activities, I don't see why that's different to public engagement listed on similar pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuryaleGorgon (talk • contribs) 13:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Oops forgot to sign this before. (EuryaleGorgon (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC))

Thank you EuryaleGorgon, as had now been noted by another editor, the whole article reads as if it is written with the intent to promote the person and/or their work. Can you please clarify whether you have a connection to the subject of the article? As for the public speaking section, that is not a standard section and those kinds of things are just what people in that kind of job do, and are listed on resumes, not in encyclopaedia articles. Melcous (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Melcous, thanks for the reply. As you can see from the history, I created the page originally. It was based off the style and content of existing wikipedia pages for Australian astrophysicists in particular Bryan Gaensler, Lisa Kewley, and Warrick Couch all of whom have also been directors of either telescopes or research centres. These pages have existed for a long time and don't seem to have had any issues with the style or content, which is similar. It's true they don't have public speaking listed as a category, in this case there was verifiable content on that so I included it. I disagree that people who are astrophysicists typically do TEDx which is why I considered it notable. There are 13,701 members of the International Astronomical Union in the world, but there are not 13,701 TEDx talks from individual astronomers on YouTube. EuryaleGorgon (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: I see you've done more. Thanks, I appreciate the copy editing. As I said, I based it off existing pages but if the style isn't right that's my fault. BTW I see you've shortened the thesis title in your last edit but it really is "Detection of magnetic fields and diffuse radio emission in Abell 3667 and other rich southern clusters of galaxies" see: https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/21954 EuryaleGorgon (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The thesis title was a mistake sorry, I thought that was a different parameter in the infobox, that can be restored. You are missing the point about the TEDx talk - hundreds of thousands of people have given TEDx talks around the world from all kinds of professions, it's a piece of minor trivia. If you want to improve the article, I suggest you start by focusing for example on the "Early life" section which currently has no sourcing for almost all the content, and the only source that is there is for a potentially non-notable piece of trivia and is both a primary source and one that does not properly verify the detail in the article anyway. Melcous (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

And again EuyaleGorgon, can you please respond to the question as to to whether you have a conflict of interest? How do you know all this information without sources? Melcous (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Melcous. Fair enough about TEDx. I've reviewed the CoI page and yes, I have a conflict here. Some of the information in the "Early life" section is discussed by the subject in interviews and podcasts like this recent one https://soundcloud.com/astrophiz/astrophiz101-prof-melanie-johnston-hollitt. Will that do? Thanks again Melcous, I appreciate your comments and efforts here and the constructive dialogue. Sorry, forgot to sign again! EuryaleGorgon (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply EuryaleGorgon and for acknowledging your conflict. That doesn't mean you can't help, what it does mean is that you are asked to suggest edits on the talk page so that they can be reviewed and then added if appropriate by other editors. The best way to do that is to use the Template:Request edit. Yes interviews, including on podcasts, can be used. If you can use the article talk page to specifically point out which interviews verify which pieces of information, I'm happy to have a look at adding that. Thanks Melcous (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Melcous, yes, I understood having read all of the CoI page that I should only make suggestions via the talk page now. There appear to be several interviews and podcasts which verify some of the existing information on the page and/or provide verification on points for which a citation needed has been added. I'll see what I can find and let you know when it's up. Might take a couple of days to collate. Thanks again. EuryaleGorgon (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Melcous, ok, I've added some suggested citations for the existing text of Melanie Johnston-Hollitt on the talk page. It didn't take as long as I'd imagined to find stuff. Please have a look and see what you think. Thanks! EuryaleGorgon (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Melcous - I tagged this article as Autobiographical and have been asked to remove it - since you seem to have noticed the same issues with the article, can you weigh in with your opinion whether it is COI or Autobiographical? Thanks for the help. - PabloMartinez (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Melcous, I have another question about one of your recent edits to this page. In the revision as of 14:25, 13 May 2020 you removed 'cosmic magnetism' from the list of topics the subject is known for in the info box. I don't understand why? The main text of the entry has citable references to the subject's international leadership in the field of cosmic magnetism (the study of magnetic fields in astrophysics) and cited examples of the subject being associated with the field, not least of which is her PhD thesis on magnetic fields in radio galaxies, her appointment as a founding co-chair of the SKA Cosmic Magnetism Working Group and first author publication on the using the SKA to understand magnetic fields in astronomy (which is actually a summary and review paper of the field). There are also many refereed journal publications, book chapters, popular science articles and press releases on Johnston-Hollitt's work on cosmic magnetism if you Google 'Cosmic magnetism + Johnston-Hollitt'. The one that's already given on the page is a summary/review of all science in the field to be done with the upcoming SKA telescope: "Using SKA Rotation Measures to Reveal the Mysteries of the Magnetised Universe", Johnston-Hollitt et al., Square Kilometre Array Organisation & Proceedings of Science, 2015, retrieved 29 December 2017.

If the issue was the field being called 'cosmic magnetism', which I'll admit does sound a bit strange, here are some institutional websites which describe it:

https://www.skatelescope.org/magnetism/ [Square Kilometre Array Organisation, Jodrell Bank, UK]

https://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/research/fundamental/cosmag [Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy, Bonn, Germany]

http://www.dunlap.utoronto.ca/observational-research/galaxy-formation-and-evolution/cosmic-magnetism/ [Dunlap Institute for Astrophysics, Toronto, Canada]

http://www.lofar.org/astronomy/cosmic-magnetism/cosmic-magnetism.html [Low Frequency Array (LOFAR), Dwingeloo, the Netherlands]

Anyway, I think this edit is in error and I can provide examples of works on the topic by the author, if needed. Or indeed pages where it explicitly states she's know for her work on magnetism. Thanks for considering the above! EuryaleGorgon (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your question EuryaleGorgon. I removed that because the list seemed excessive. If you have a look at Template:Infobox scientist, you will see that this parameter is supposed to be a list of what the person is particularly notable or famous for, e.g. discovering an element. So the question is probably more whether there is (yet) any scientific achievements that reach that level of notability for this particular person. I'm not convinced there are. Melcous (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Melcous. Ok if it's at the level of 'discovery of the electron' (as mentioned in the template), I agree that's a high bar which would imply general notability, not notability in their field (which was my initial assumption). In this case, I agree with your edit. Additionally, if this is the threshold, then I agree in this case there may not (yet) be sufficient notability in any fields for this subject, though there is some evidence for some notability in the field of galaxy cluster research (eg co-author on recent notable cluster research: Ophiuchus Supercluster explosion). In this case the notability should probably be reduced further to just radio observations of galaxy clusters, or removed entirely. Thanks for explaining that, I shall keep that in mind in future. EuryaleGorgon (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop removing factual information

Please stop removing actual facts on the Floyd Creatchman page. Everything that I posted was 100% accurate and true, so there is no valid reason for you to keep going back to the page each day and continuously removing the factual information posted. Every bit of information has a valid source and if all the information is true, it is not "trivia and puffery". Every wrestler and wrestling manager on wiki lists the wrestlers that they managed, and or wrestled against, so it is ridiculous to delete that information. Look at other pages and you will see that it is true. You live in Australia and obviously know nothing about Montreal, Quebec, Canada wrestling, or any wrestling anywhere for that matter. I think that you are just bored and chose to pick on this page and keep coming back and deleting valid and true information. I am his niece, and what I posted is 100% true and valid. Please stick to editing subjects that you know about. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheckerab (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Factcheckerab, as a family member of the person the article is about, you have a clear conflict of interest and should not be editing it directly at all. Please do not do so again. You may instead use the article's talk page if you think there is information that is incorrect or missing, providing reliable sources for all information (please note that wikipedia and other user-generated content are not acceptable sources). Thank you Melcous (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Factcheckerab: I actually live in Montreal, Canada-- I'm there right now! Anyway, since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the page in question, as we strive for neutrality. As his niece you are not a neutral editor. Over and out from Montreal, Canada. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes made to Wikipedia article Dayendranath Burrenchobay

Hi Melcous. Please provide justification for deleting valid text regarding the education and the book written by past Governor General Dayendranath Burrenchobay. The informnation that I typed was fully substantiated and referenced.

BerwickKent I don't know what you are talking about. My single edit here removed two paragraphs which as my edit summary clearly stated were completely unsourced, that is, they had no footnotes or references at all. Melcous (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes made to page Dayendranath Burrenchobay

Hi Melcous. I provided the full citation and reference for the text that I typed on the page Dayendranath Burrenchobay. However you deleted my text. Here is the reference book once again: "Let the People Think: A Compilation of the Thoughts of Sir Dayendranath Burrenchobay" published by Editions de l'Ocean Indien in 2000. Please advise your justification for deleting information that was duly referenced. BerwickKent (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

And again BerwickKent, you do not seem to understand what a "full citation and reference" is. You provided a redlink (that is, an internal link to a non-existent wikipedia page) for the book, nothing more. Similarly the entire paragraph on education had no footnotes or references. All content should be footnoted to reliable, independent, secondary sources or it may be removed. Melcous (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Conflict-of-Interest Editing

Hi Melcous! Thank you for informing me - I see! Apologies, I will refrain from future editing on the page! Best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samturpin95 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Lynn Anderson

Hi there! Thank you so much for helping in adding tags to the Lynn Anderson main article. I started cleaning it up this week. So far I have completed her "early life" and "early country success" section. Another user had gone in and rewritten it with fan heavy (and clearly biased) wording. I will continue to make sure information added to the rest of the article is neutral and unbiased. Thanks again. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ChrisTofu11961, there is definitely some work to be done there. I would suggest even those two sections you have gone through remain overly detailed and verging on what would be written in a detailed biography rather than an encyclopaedia article. Melcous (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense, thank you. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Melcous Hi there .... does the same "more of a biography than encyclopedia" suggestion/standard apply to the Crystal Gayle page on which ChrisTofu11961 has been a major contributor? Essentially the same sentence, re. Gayle being one of the most successful crossover artists of the '70s/'80s, is in the first couple of sentences (relatively sourced) on Gayle's page. If it's on the Crystal Gayle page introduction, it should also be on the Lynn Anderson page, I would think. Anderson was equally (perhaps more) successful in the '70s than Gayle (certainly successful prior to Gayle). Additionally, Lynn Anderson ranks among the top 3-4 female country singers of the '70s, and with due diligence, this is also easily sourced. Just asking for consistency across the board - one way or the other (e.g. with or without the info on their respective pages). Lastly, asking for your unbiased opinion on another issue: when an artist, per the Billboard charts & and an actual article from Billboard specifically addresses the accomplishment (in a 2015 article) states a particular song held a record as the biggest-selling by a female country singer for 27 years straight and was the first by a female country singer to top of the charts around the world, do you think that song warrants / deserves being prefaced with the word "mega-hit" (as I've usually seen it)? There are hits and there are mega/monster hits. Thanks! p.s. the Crystal Gayle page is, by your definition alone, laden with "puffery." Mikiesmonkey 6 June 2020

Mikiesmonkey I'm really not sure why you are asking me this, I've never edited the Crystal Gayle article, but if it needs editing, go ahead and edit it. But also see WP:OSE - pointing out a potential problem with one article is rarely a helpful way to address editing questions over another. In terms of your request for my 'unbiased opinion', it doesn't matter what I think qualifies a song to be called a "mega-hit", to be included in wikipedia that description would need to have been stated by a reliable, independent, secondary source and even then it would be unusual to put such phrasing in Wikipedia's voice, so it would be more likely to be "X called it a "mega-hit". Melcous (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Please review Quad Site entry for removal of header

Melcous, would you please review the Quad Site entry for removal of the header? ColtsPop ColtsPop (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ColtsPop, you have removed seem content that was written in a non-encyclopaedic style, but the issue is the style the rest of the article is written in. This is not about removing large sections, but about re-writing it in a factual and neutral manner. Just for a couple of examples, phrases like "is important for a number of reasons", "worthy of its legacy" and "it may be argued that" are not encyclopaedic in style, but what someone writing an essay would say. Melcous (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please review once more. Thanks ColtsPop ColtsPop (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability of science communicators

As the Wikipedian who flagged Sarafina Nance for probably not meeting our notability criteria, this ongoing discussion might interest you. --bender235 (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Ellen Datlow

You say the awards ought to be detailed in the main article with suitable references. But they are - in a long list. So 'award-winning' seems entirely appropriate to use in the lede. Valetude (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No the point is that the awards should be detailed in the main article and that should suffice. To use the adjective "award winning" in the opening description is meaningless puffery - it could be said of anyone who has won any award ever. Check out the articles of people who have won major awards (e.g. Nobel prizes, Academy awards), they are not described this way - they don't need to be. It is the kind of WP:PEACOCK wording usually used to make someone appear more important than they are. Just let the awards speak for themselves. Melcous (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Let’s agree that ‘award-winning’ is over-used (though it does have a specific meaning, and I think it’s borderline for PEACOCK).

But I can’t agree that awards should automatically be left to speak for themselves in the main article. In a speciality like fantasy fiction, which can attract fringe candidates with self-promotional agendas, a mention of awards in the lede serves to mark out the serious player.

I have amended the lede accordingly. Valetude (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with that, notable awards can and should be mentioned in the lead if they are sourced within the article. That's quite different to using the adjective :) Cheers, Melcous (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing external links

Hi, please explain why did you remove the external links to Instagram, Twitter, Vimeo and Facebook of this Article, Thanks-- Arashkardan (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Arashkardan as linked in the edit summary, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL notes that "Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites." and normally only one link should be included. Melcous (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing unlinked/redlinked doctoral/notable students

This is a battle I probably can't win, but I at least want to register my dismay that this is happening. Is there a consensus that there should be a systematic removal of such names? I tried to find a discussion on the relevant project pages, but maybe I didn't know where to look. WP:WTAF seems to be opinion and not Wikipedia policy; Template:Infobox academic is ambiguous—the comment in the template itself says "only those with WP articles", but the more detailed description below that only says "notable enough for WP articles", which is not the same thing. I've left a comment on the template talk page asking for clarification.

I realize there is likely some spam and some noise in these lists, but at the same time many lists will reflect the careful thought of the editors who created them, and wholesale removal may be throwing away valuable content, most particularly on pages of academics who work in fields that aren't well represented on Wikipedia. Also, it is based on the notion that Wikipedia is finished, and whatever is notable is already in the encyclopedia. This would seem to lead to Wikipedia becoming even more of a self-referential system than it already is.

I could, of course, create an article about Warwick de Launey, and I started to do so, but it will take at least a day of effort to produce something that won't embarrass me as author and won't embarrass the subject's family and colleagues, and that is a day—if I can find it—that I would rather spend improving mathematics content on Wikipedia than on writing biographies of mathematicians. There are too many CV-summary stubs of academics on Wikipedia already, and I don't think we want to encourage the creation of more. In my experience, such articles seldom get improved; after the subject retires or dies, it becomes even harder to find well-sourced content, and my guess is that most such articles will fall into increasing disrepair. At any rate, anything I might write will pale in comparison to the article Flannery and Horadam wrote for de Launey's festschrift, which is part of the permanent scholarly record, or the beautiful obituaries that appeared in several San Diego newspapers. But to leave a scholar of de Launey's stature off a list like this only diminishes the list. Will Orrick (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Will Orrick and thanks for your message. Fair point, I'm sure there are some examples where we should be encouraging article creation more actively in this space! I'm coming more from the other side of seeing too many articles with long lists of non-notable, and likely to never be notable students, sometimes apparently created by one of those students, inserted into articles. If there is someone in particular that you think is notable that I have removed, and you want to re-insert the name with a reference and a redlink to encourage article creation, that's fine by me. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Melcous,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Palace of Justice Antwerp

I thought you should know that the phrase an award winning was not puffery, as the awards won were listed at the bottom of the article (Palace_of_Justice_Antwerp#Awards). SethWhales ^talk 11:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Seth Whales, thank you but I would still argue the phrase is puffery - it can be used of anything that has won any award no matter how trivial. The point is to name notable awards and let them speak for themselves, adding the adjective to the lead is meaningless; it's a "weasel word". As I have said above on this page, check out some articles where people have won extremely notable awards eg Nobel Prizes or Academy Awards - they don't use the word "award winning" - it tends to be used when an editor wants to make something less notable sound more impressive than it is. Cheers Melcous (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

IMHO an RIBA award is a major award within architecture, not trivial. Nevertheless, it's not that important enough for me to labour the point anymore. Have a good day, and best wishes. SethWhales ^talk 14:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not being clear, but if that is the case, why not put somewhere in the WP:LEAD that it has won that particular award? That would be much better than the meaningless and vague adjective "award winning" in the opening sentence. Cheers Melcous (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Changes made to Wikipedia article Zhejiang Wenzhou High School

Hey, Melous, I noticed you remove 2 paragraphs that I edited. I apologize that I forget to mention the content is translated from the existing Wikipedia page in another language.

Waner Zhou that really doesn't change anything - whether content is copied from another wiki or not, it still needs to be properly sourced here and to meet the guidelines for inclusion of this wiki. I would suggest the kind of trivia about a school's sports days etc that you have added does not belong. Also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Addition of maintenance templates without further details.

Melcous please stop adding maintenance templates without detail on exactly what you have issue with. Your additions do nothing but provide vague feedback for an otherwise fine article. I realize you have an obsession for editing biographical pieces, but incessant editing and addition of uninformative maintenance templates without detail is not only unhelpful, but also disruptive. Please provide extra information into the reasoning (specifically) why you think each of these items in necessary. If you cannot provide SPECIFIC reasoning then i advise you leave the article alone. If not, then your actions will be reported. Thank-you topic: Peter_Schwerdtfeger— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wranxisys (talk • contribs)

Wranxisys the templates themselves give details of what the problems are. As they name, there is content that is completely unsourced (e.g. the whole academic career section); content that is written like a resume rather than an encyclopaedia (e.g. "He was awarded many international and national grants") and the article has been heavily edited by editors who have not edited any other articles and appear to perhaps have a conflict of interest. I would be interested to know how you, a brand new editor, made your very first edit to the entire project to remove these templates from this article without addressing these specific issues (your edit summary said "content reflects the subject of the article accurately" which has nothing to do with any of them). What is your connection to the subject of the article? Melcous (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Wranxisys, your recent edit summary makes it clear that you have a conflict of interest in editing this article (editing at the request of the subject), which means you should not edit the article directly. You can make an edit request on the talk page instead, or please direct the subject of the article to this page for options. It should be noted that wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone, including the person they are about. Thank you 02:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Melcous The removal of selected publications satisfies "is written like a résumé" issue and also with the small addition of a short sentence about place of birth also moves the article away from the direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wranxisys (talk • contribs) 02:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Wranisys actually no, you have misunderstood the issue. As I said in my edit summary reverting you, a list of publications is quite standard in an academic biography here, and does not need additional sourcing. What does need sourcing, preferably with sources independent of the subject, is the rest of the article. And once again, the fact that you have acknowledged that you are editing this article at the request of the subject means that by definition you do have a conflict of interest, and should use the talk page rather than editing the article directly. Melcous (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Wranxisys due to above typo. And please sign your posts on talk pages. Melcous (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This is best discussed at the WP:COIN thread.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Melcous --> ok so we are getting somewhere now. Obviously you can draw a connection between the professor and i if you try hard enough. fine. COI with respect to the content on the page, no. COI with respect to removing the issue tags because they are not justified... this is what we are discussing. SO: "What does need sourcing, preferably with sources independent of the subject, is the rest of the article" --> can you be specific ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wranxisys (talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Wranxisys, the conflict of interest discussion now belongs on the WP:COIN thread, not here. I have no idea what you mean by making a distinction between a COI with respect to the professor or to the content or to the tags. I left the WP:COI guidelines on your talk page, they are clear - as you have an external relationship with the person, you should not be editing the article directly. Please do not argue with me further on that here, take it to the WP:COIN thread.

As for the sourcing question, I'm not sure if you are trying to be obtuse, but the entire "Academic career" section of the article has zero sources. All the information in that paragraph should be verifiable by reference to footnotes that provide reliable, independent, secondary sources, that's how this whole project works. If you are aware of such sources, feel free to point them out on the talk page of the article. And for the third time, please sign your posts on talk pages. Melcous (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Aaron Renier article

Hello, Melcous. In this edit, you tagged the Aaron Renier page as potentially having a paid editor involved. Are you able to provide any additional context as to why you tagged this? (The talk page is empty, and I couldn't see any obvious edits around this time that might provide additional info.) I am not sure how to assess it. The contributing editors are pretty varied. -2pou (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

2pou the creator of the article was blocked for undisclosed paid editing. If you think subsequent editors have dealt with all the potential issues from that, please feel free to remove the template. Thanks Melcous (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Zoé Samudzi

Hi – I disagree RE: Samudzi notability. Maybe not academic notability, yet, but Samudzi certainly fulfils the criteria here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals.. and has 110k followers on Twitter... so could be down as a social media 'influencer' too. What do you think I should do to better prove this notability? 2A00:23C8:5987:AC01:1C9C:2909:668B:A32F (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me! I got logged out.Jesswade88 (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jesswade88 - for starters, if the person is not notable as an academic, then it seems to me that the Template:Infobox academic should not be used on the article. But yes more significantly, how is notability demonstrated here? From the current content in the article, I'm not seeing which point under WP:CREATIVE is met. And as yet, there is nothing clear to say that a certain number of social media followers in and of itself makes someone notable, although I note Pi recently raised a question about this at Wikipedia Talk:Notability (people). Personally, I think the article as it stands doesn't show notability is met. If there are better sources that can be provided that show she meets one of the criteria, then they should be added and the article reshaped to focus on that particular aspect of her life. Melcous (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

On a different note Jess, I noticed you moved Donna Yates (professor) from draft to article space, but you did not deal with the AFC templates when you did this, nor did you do some of the clean-up needed (e.g. removing external links and incorrectly formatting headings, adding article rather than draft categories). You also marked your edit as "minor", which a move from draft space is not. It would be great if you could fix those issues and be a bit more careful with that process. Thanks Melcous (talk)

Ingrid Verbauwhede

Hello, This is regarding citations missing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrid_Verbauwhede. I've now added citations to this section. Could you check whether this is sufficient to remove the notice?Csengul (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks, Csengul (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Csengul, yes I will remove the notice as sources have been provided. However, most of them do not appear to be independent of the subject though, so it would be preferable if independent, secondary sources could be provided. (Also, on a minor note of formatting, punctuation should come before the reference tags). Thanks Melcous (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Victoria COVID-19 updates

I see someone else has now made essentially the same edit I originally made. --Danielklein (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Danielklein with the difference being they included a source :) Melcous (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"Boom! No source! You're wrong! Delete it!" How about tagging it as "citation needed" and asking the author to provide a source? --Danielklein (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Danielklein I have no idea why you're so keen to yell "gotcha" at me, but this edit added a source and clearly explained the ceasing of reporting of clusters, which was the parallel to the single edit of yours I reverted because it was unsourced and, I thought, not quite clearly worded. Have a good day. Melcous (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Who said "gotcha"? I'm asking in the interests of friendly cooperation if you'd perhaps not assume that anything that is unsourced is factually incorrect. Assume good faith on the part of the editor. Point out where improvements can be made, or be bold and improve it yourself! Don't just undo good faith edits with an "Ah-ha! Gotcha! You broke a Wikipedia rule!" attitude. And saying "Have a good day" when an issue hasn't been resolved yet is highly condescending. --Danielklein (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Danielklein, to me "Boom! You're wrong!" is pretty much the equivalent of "Gotcha!" And "Have a good day" is my attempt to bring an end to a conversation that appears to be getting pointless, so everyone can move on. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Which I was saying you did to me. --Danielklein (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes Danielklein, after you went back and edited your comment that became clearer. The way it was originally written it was not. Can we just drop it? Melcous (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you still intend to delete unsourced information you find? --Danielklein (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That depends entirely on the circumstances. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect editors to include a source when they update information. And you still seem to have missed my original comments entirely, which were that I did not revert your edit solely because it was unsourced but also because its wording was unclear ("last" could have meant "most recent" or "final" and without a source or explanation, there was no way of knowing). And the effort spent on this petty conversation here could have been more productively spent by both of us on edits to provide sources and clarity elsewhere. Melcous (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it's unreasonable to contact editors politely and ask them to fix any issues they've created, perhaps without being aware of it? In case you can't tell, my issue with you is not resolved which is why I'm not going to "just drop it". I'm sorry that you feel this conversation is petty. I'm hoping that together we can make Wikipedia a better place. When issues arise they can (and hopefully should) be a teaching opportunity. --Danielklein (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Danielklein, I'm just not interested in continuing this conversation with you. If your "issue" with me is such a big deal, feel free to take it to the appropriate places. I'd just rather agree to disagree and move on. Please don't post about this on my talk page again. Melcous (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What I heard you say: "I'm lily white and perfect. I've never done anything wrong in my life. I have nothing to learn from anyone. If people are upset by my actions, that's their problem. I'm not interested in fixing any imaginary problems people might have with me. Go away and stop bothering me." --Danielklein (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Then you were not listening well to me Danielklein, because I have never said any of those things. (And you said "teaching opportunity" not "learning opportunity" which is not the same thing). I have asked you politely not to continue this conversation here. Please respect that. Melcous (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Discussion to prevent overzealous editing was derailed and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

For my own or anyone else's future reference, the arbitration request was dismissed as "obviously premature" and this whole thread called a "massive overreaction" to "perfectly normal practice". [3] Melcous (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Bella Ferraro

Hi, I am Bella Ferraro. A lot of the information you wrote originally on my page was incorrect. My birthday is not the 20th August. I'm happy for you to continue manning and editing my wikipedia page but I do not appreciate the false information. Thanks.

Answered on editor's talk page. Melcous (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Fiona Graham

Hi Melcous. Harisidikk removed your response to their edit request when they trying to amend their request. I re-added your decline, but the time stamps of the posts are are now out of sync so it looks like you actually to a request before it was actually posted. If you want to berate them over the coals for WP:TPO, feel free to do so; however, I don't think that will stop the obvious WP:MEAT that is going on. This article has had problems for disruption for quite a number of years, but the recent spurt might actually be the result of direct encouragement from the subject of the article herself. FWIW, I came upon this via WP:THQ#Can't edit due to extended confirmed protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You might also want to look at WP:HD#Sayuki Geisha Page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. I had seen the Teahouse but not the helpdesk request. I've tried to explain again on the talk page what you and everyone else have already said. Not looking particularly hopeful though. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

HI,

you are a good editer, i did a minor edit in the psalms so kindly read it and if it is inappropriate then kindly delete it regardsUMAGPR (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi UMAGPR and welcome to wikipedia. I appreciate you trying to add something, but I have reverted your edit for a couple of reasons. One is that the source you provided, someone's personal web page, is not what is considered a reliable source here. Another is that the opening paragraphs of a wikipedia article should be a summary of the whole thing, and so are not the place to add new content. And finally, the style of writing here is a bit more formal and less giving someone's opinion than that. It can take a bit of time to get used to the style of editing here, but reading the different guidelines I have linked to (and that others have pointed you to on your talk page) and asking lots of questions along the way will help. Thank you for asking and being willing to learn! Melcous (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Berkshire Grey

Hi Melcous,

Thank you for your review of Berkshire Grey’s Wikipedia page.

Below are four proposed edits to address the Peacock template message. Can you please review the proposed edits and let me know if they are sufficient for removal of the Peacock template? If any other language in the article should be edited to qualify for removal of the Peacock template can you please let me know?

1.

Current text: In December 2018 Berkshire Grey emerged from stealth mode and announced it has been deploying AI-enabled robotics solutions for omnichannel fulfillment at Global 100 retailers and logistics companies, automating tasks never previously performed by machines in commercial settings.[4][5][6][7]

Proposed revision: In December 2018 Berkshire Grey emerged from stealth mode and announced it has been deploying AI-enabled robotics solutions for omnichannel fulfillment at Global 100 retailers and logistics companies.[4][5][6][7]

2.

Current text: Software: Cloud-based artificial intelligence software continuously learns to improve solution performance and is built around a common core of modules including perception, planning, sensing, grasping, and operational workflows. All Berkshire Grey solutions utilize a common software platform and a library of APIs to integrate with existing supply chain systems.[25]

Proposed revision: Software: Cloud-based artificial intelligence software is built around a common core of modules including perception, planning, sensing, grasping, and operational workflows.[25]

3.

Current text: Robotics: Berkshire Grey uses a mix of proprietary patented and patent-pending robotics that it designs and manufactures along with commercial industrial robots sourced from leading manufacturers. Berkshire Grey writes the control software for all the robots used in its solutions. Berkshire Grey also designed advanced grip and end effector technology that can pick, move and place products. Integrated sensors provide a constant real-time feedback mechanism to optimize handling at the specific item level.[26]

Proposed revision: Robotics: Berkshire Grey uses a mix of proprietary patented and patent-pending robotics that it designs and manufactures along with commercial industrial robots sourced from manufacturers. Berkshire Grey writes the control software for all the robots used in its solutions. Berkshire Grey also designed grip and end effector technology that can pick, move and place products. Integrated sensors provide handling at the specific item level.[26]

4.

Current text: Robotic Parcel Sortation systems enable logistics providers and retailers to sort and consolidate small parcels generated by ecommerce operations into bags and containers for efficient network handling and zone skipping

Proposed revision: Robotic Parcel Sortation systems enable logistics providers and retailers to sort and consolidate small parcels generated by ecommerce operations into bags and containers for network handling and zone skipping.

Thank you!

Toddlute (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Toddlute, these kinds of suggestions should be made on the article's talk page, not here, preferably using the Template:Edit request. But before you do that, you also need to clarify whether you have a conflict of interest with this topic and if so make the appropriate declaration. And finally, most of your proposed edits above do not deal with the issue flagged - they still read as the kind of language a company would say about itself on its website or in marketing material. This is an encyclopaedia, so all content should be written in a neutral tone and should be verifiable by reference to independent, secondary, reliable sources. Thank you Melcous (talk)

Melcous, can you specify which words or sentences prompted you to add the Peacock template message? That would focus attention and make editing and reviewing most efficient. Thanks. Toddlute (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Again Toddlute, before I do that can you please clarify whether you have a connection to this company? Thank you Melcous (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Melcous, I created the article talk page and disclosure. Thank you for clarifying there which words or sentences need editing or additional citations for removal of the Peacock template.Toddlute (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Toddlute} for making those disclosures. Please note that it would be helpful for you to disclose your paid editing on each article talk page as well. I have flagged those for WP:COI so they can be cleaned up. You should also cease editing any of those articles yourself and instead propose any changes on the talk page. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Melcous, I disclosed my paid editing on the talk pages of all articles I edited. I also posted on the Berkshire Grey talk page three requests for edits using the Template:Edit request. Thank you! Toddlute (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Melcous: hello and hope all is well. I've posted this one to COIN.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

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

Hedi Mattoussi

added links pointing to Tunisian and American

Luisa Torsi

added a link pointing to Italian

Patricia DeLeon

added a link pointing to Jamaican

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Tim Costello Profile Updates

Hi Melcous,

Thanks for reviewing the changes made to Tim Costello's page. I tried to reference each of the changes I made, but realised I didn't for the honours that I added in. Given I have been a colleague of his, is it best for somebody else to update accordingly? They are all in public domain on speaking bureau sites, in media and the like.

Cheers - and thanks for your service to the wikipedia community!

Timmiddlemiss (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Tim

Hi Timmiddlemiss, yes it does appear that you have a conflict of interest (you also need to check out whether you meet wikipedia's definition of paid editors and if so take the required action). In either case, you should refrain from editing the article directly and instead, suggest any changes on the talk page instead. You can most easily do this using the Template:Request edit. If you can point to sources for those honours, I'm happy to add them back in - just note they should be reliable, independent, secondary sources. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Melcous. Below are the honours with references

• Victorian of the Year 2004 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_of_the_Year
• Officer of the Order of Australia - June 2005 - https://honours.pmc.gov.au/honours/awards/113586
• Victorian Nominee for Australian of the Year - 2006 - https://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/recipients/tim-costello/1428/
• Australian Peace Prize Laureate - 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Peace_Prize#:~:text=Prize%20winners&text=2008%20%2D%20Rev.,poverty%20alleviation%20and%20gun%20control%22.
• National Living Treasure - National Trust of Australia https://www.mamamia.com.au/national-living-treasures/

onorary Doctorate from the Australian Catholic University in recognition of "his contributions to religious life and social justice" [already referenced]

Timmiddlemiss (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Tim

Thanks Timmiddlemiss, I have moved some content that was elsewhere in the article to that section. Two things to note going forward, please make suggestions and provide references on the article's talk page rather than here, and wikipedia itself is not a valid reference. Cheers Melcous (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Tagging of User:Khushi patan nazia

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on User:Khushi patan nazia. I do not think that User:Khushi patan nazia fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because user pages are allowed to include limited biographical information, and this is not excessive. If you wish, you may try using the simple proposed deletion (PROD) process, or the full articles for deletion (AfD) process, instead. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_Henry

At the very top of this article, there is a massive bias one-sided view towards the Provincial Public Health Officer of British Columbia (a political figure), Dr. Henry. Please note that Dr. Henry is a public political figure who appears on news media briefing on a nearly daily basis. I have been trying to correct this by adding more recent context by means of news media articles and providing an unbiased view yet you keep reverting the changes. At the very top, this article states, "Her handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia earned praise in a dedicated New York Times article that called her "one of the most effective public health officials in the world, however that article and quote was published June 5, 2020. Since that date, British Columbia has seen a massive spike in COVID-19 infections under Henry's leadership. Just a few of countless examples: On August 12, 2020, https://globalnews.ca/news/7270275/bc-coronavirus-update-august-12/ "B.C. records 85 new coronavirus cases, its third-highest ever single-day total"

Another example, on August 7, 2020, https://www.dawsoncreekmirror.ca/covid-19/b-c-s-covid-19-cases-near-50-spike-this-week-1.24182824 B.C.'s COVID-19 cases near 50% spike this week

Another example, on July 21, 2020 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-covid-update-july-21-1.5658115 Curve continues to trend upward as B.C. announces 30 new cases of COVID-19

Another example, on August 13, 2020, https://globalnews.ca/news/7272412/bc-new-modelling-data-covid19/ Coronavirus: B.C. is trending towards massive growth of new cases in September

Another example, on July 24, 2020, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-is-it-time-for-dr-bonnie-henry-to-get-tough/ Is it time for Dr. Bonnie Henry to get tough?

So again, the first article cited at the very top is extremely biased and does not provide context regarding events that started to occur under Henry's leadership shortly after the first article was published. We need to provide an unbiased view showing the article on July 5th, 2020 but also providing facts regarding what has occurred since then. I would suggest two options:

1) We create a separate heading which covers Dr. Henry's full handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia. As Dr. Henry is the Provincial Public Health Officer of British Columbia, we could highlight all facts that have occurred under her leadership with both the highs and the lows. Again, please note that Dr. Henry is a public political figure who appears on news media briefing on a nearly daily basis so quite frankly, a full and more detailed section regarding her handling of COVID-19 in British Columbia should in fact be created and exist.

2) We balance the very top statement by providing context as to what has occurred since the June 5, 2020 article was published, as I have done.

Please let me know your thoughts as soon as possible since we need to address the clear bias that exists at the very top of this Wikipedia article.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualVisionary (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Frédéric Godart

Hi Melcous. Thank you for improving the Frédéric Godart article. As soon as I find the time, I will follow the directives you gave in your last edit. As for the notability tag, I wanted to mention Godart's high number of citations from his works in hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Especially in the fashion and sociology field, his works, articles and researches are vastly mentioned and cited throughout all Wikipedia portals. Before creating the article and investing two hours of my free time and actually to get a better feeling regarding the notability, I've also reviewed the some Wikipedia articles to his co-authors with less academic and industry influence like Ashley Mears, which have been around for a while. Any help or suggestions apart from the notability guidelines would be much appreciated. Have a great day > ► robomod 10:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, please see my response on the above here: Talk:Frédéric_Godart#Notability_tag ► robomod 14:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Biography help

Dear Mx Melcous,

I suggested amendments to the biography I was editing in the 'talk' page of the biography. Can you please review it? I do not have a conflict of interest; however, I understand that it might be easier if I do not directly edit the biography.

This is still a learning process for me and every bit of help counts. Bio editor 2020 (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Bio editor 2020 thank you for your message here, it is a key part of editing wikipedia to talk to and work with other editors so this is a helpful start. Unfortunately what you have done in copying and pasting a huge amount of text onto the article talk page is not all that helpful. The first thing you need to do is respond to the messages on User talk:Bio editor 2020, your talk page. You have said multiple times in your edit summaries that you have been working in close collaboration with the subject of the article. That in itself means you do have a conflict of interest and so should not edit the article directly. You are also asked to disclose your conflict of interest. Once you have done that, then you can suggest changes to the article on the talk page. But the best way to do that is to use the Template:Request edit and make requests one at a time, rather than simply copy and paste a whole proposed article. Can I please ask you to slow down and walk through these steps one at a time? Thank you, Melcous (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mx Mecous, Thank you for your guidance. I placed the sections I would like to add to the biography in question under the 'talk' page with all the necessary sources - is this alright? Also - I am not sure how exactly to disclose my conflict of interest? I have checked the guidelines but the exact steps left me confused (apologies). To that extent, I am happy to do it as long as the editing process keeps moving (please). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bio editor 2020 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Julie-Ann Guivarra, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Filipino and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

What went wrong with this article, why you kept a Template:Peacock

Dear User:Melcous Please suggest me why you kept a Template:Peacock, I wrote the article based on the references I got. So suggest me how to improve my page Chemancheri Kunhiraman Nair, where you added a Template:Peacock. and please tell me what are the steps needed to be taken. I wrote this with very good background work. I dint try to promotes the subject in a subjective manner, he is a living legent who need not want any such wiki promotions. I am also no were benefited with that. Hope you have kept Template:Peacock , with out adequate reference checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulsoman (talk • contribs) 13:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Rahulsoman as the users who responded to your question at the Teahouse have explained, the language in the article is not neutral, but sounds promotional and like it was written by a fan or devotee of the person. The article needs to be re-written in the style of an encyclopaedia. 14:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

About Ramesh Narayan edit

Hi Melcous, I reverted your edit because Feryal Ozel indeed has a wiki page, since 2012. I just didn't know how to add the link before, I am new here. Sorry about that! JimenaAstro — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimenaAstro (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, JimenaAstro thanks for adding the link, all good now. Happy editing. Melcous (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! :) JimenaAstro (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)JimenaAstro

August 2020

Melcous, why have you reedited my work on the page for Brian Metcalf? I even reverted back to an older page that you did and you changed that and added back warnings on top that duffbeer added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyannasmith (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Kellyannasmith, thanks for your message. A few explanations:

• I have moved your comment to the bottom of my talk page where it belongs and put the correct date in the heading. When you leave comments on a talk page, please put them at the end not the top, and please also sign your posts.
• As my edit summary said, I reverted your edits because they restored cherry-picked quotes that make it sound like a promotional blurb for the movie (it is also worth saying that this is a biography of the person, so IF these quotes belonged anywhere it would be in an article about the movie not the person, but even there they would not be neutral)
• I also noted that you removed maintenance templates raising the issue of notability and Conflict of Interest without addressing those concerns. Can you please clarify whether you have a relationship with Brian Metcalf and therefore a conflict in editing this article?
• Finally, as I said in the edit summary, if other editors disagree with your edits, then the best thing to do is open a discussion on the article's talk page to see if a consensus can be reached, rather than continuing to make the same changes. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Melcous Hi Melcous, I found the blurbs directly off the Living Among Us wikipedia page and copied and pasted them. They have not at all been flagged. Secondly you did not answer why when I reverted the page back to your other changes, again they were changed. Also why is the notability being questioned since this page has been up for many years? I do not have a personal relationship with Brian. I just follow his work and have spoken with him a couple times. All of the information I posted about him can be found through press releases and other sites. Why would major press releases not be allowed or considered? Thank you. Kellyannasmith. —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Common Grace (Australia) has been accepted

Common Grace (Australia), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Nightenbelle (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia (18 days). Can you help me make the article better?

Here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamjee_Cantonment_College Would you please give me some advices so that I can improve the article? Userths (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thank you for the notification sir. A have seen your good participations towards improving reliable contents on wikipedia. I am very happy for meeting you as a novice. Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Questions

Well done sir. Please, can you exactly tell me what exactly can be removed from the article Kayode Oladele? I am a novice. Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Abubakar Balarabe I would suggest that the list of "articles and publications is excessive" and should be trimmed to "Selected publications" with just the most significant and important. (It also needs to be correctly formatted, using the * symbol for each item). Similarly, the list of bills sponsored is unnecessary. The other main thing is the use of language throughout the article that is not neutral, so things like "important role", qualifications that are unsourced, opinions about other people that are only sourced to himself etc. I will do some tidying up to start in some of those areas. Melcous (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful, thank you very much sir. I will now remove those things that are useless in the article. Whenever I am done, I will notify you. Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much sister

I have learnt the mistakes I have made while contributing on the article's contents. I will provide references for the deal links, since it has been there for a long. I am very happy for meeting you as a great and brilliant female editor. I really appreciate. Thank you. Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much mar.

I have arranged for something there, you can check for the correction. Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Questions

Good morning mar. I really appreciate your effort in ensuring reliable information. May I help you in contributing some suggested articles? I meant that if you know some articles that you want me to build on them later you make the editing. I really learn a lot from you. Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)