User talk:Melcous/Archive 17

External Links - Cajun Navy

Hi Melcous,

Thank you for the note and for educating me on the external links! I appreciate it as I am new to editing and have come across several errors in my nonprofit's wiki page that I wanted to get cleared up!

Have a Blessed day!

Chad Fahnestock www.TheCajunNavy.org Chadfahnestock (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome Chadfahnestock. As you have a connection to the organisation, you should carefully read through wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, as Possibly has noted on your talk page. The key things you are asked to do from here on are (1) appropriately disclose your connection; and (2) use the article's talk page to request edits rather than making them to the article yourself. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Mini Shaji Thomas

Hey! I noticed you had placed notability tag on this. Actually, as per WP:Academic criteria 6, highest-level elected or appointed administrative official is considered notable. In an NIT, The director is the highest level administrative official. WP:GNG is not required to be satisfied for academics (this is what I have seen mostly). So it is sort of certain that she is notable and there is no question of 'may'. Let me know your thoughts and if seems appropriate, remove the notability tag there. Thanks! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Same old at Michael Harris (producer)

Hi Melcous, I've reverted the fluff again, and started another thread at ANI, which may be of some small interest [1]. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Alan Mikhail

Can you check the page. Some account is deleting all criticism. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Alan Mikhail, did you know that Alex had the host of Jeopardy had died? Alex Trebek had battled Pancreatic Cancer for greater than a year and a half. But sadly on November 8th, Alex Trebek lost his battle and passed away. He was 80 years old. Alex Trebek was best known for his family, fans, friends, and the love of his life, "Ivan, Our Sympathies." It's very sad but more than that, this is a huge loss for the Jeopardy family. I speak for the entire Jeopardy crew when I say "Good bye, Alex. You will be missed." (In Loving Memory Of Alex Trebek 1940-2020) Jackley244 (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing degrees from Economist Infoboxes

Hello!

I see that you just removed degrees (BA, MA, PhD), from the infoboxes of several dozen pages of economists that I monitor. Each time, you commented, "parameter is for institutions." However, if you look at Template:Infobox economist, which I used on those pages, the example on that page clearly shows | alma_mater =

• Columbia University (PhD 1946) * University of Chicago (MA 1933) *Rutgers University (BA 1932)

Can you explain more about why you have removed these degrees from all these pages? And if they were removed in error, could you please put them back?--EAWH (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, EAWH thanks that's interesting to note as I have been going by Template:Infobox academic which lists only the institution and has a separate parameter for education if it is considered relevant, so I did not notice that the economist specific template was different. I will endeavour to put back those where I can. And while I have you, could I please ask to make sure to include nationality even when it is American/US - it is one of my bug bears :), that the dropping of nationality for Americans or use of language like "came to the US" subtly implies that wikipedia is written from a US perspective when it is not. Thanks Melcous (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Victor Suthren

Dear Melcous

My addition to my entry is correct, and I would be grateful if it was reinstated. The credit, which for some reason I was unable to add, is:

Celinscak, M. (2018). The Holocaust and the Canadian War Museum Controversy. Canadian Jewish Studies, 26(1). https://dol.org/10.25071/1916-0925.40063

Can you assist me by reinstating my addition and correctly adding this credit?

Yours aye Victor Suthren 142.116.4.7 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There are a few issues - if you are the subject of the article, then you should not be editing it directly as you have a conflict of interest. You can instead use the talk page to suggest changes. As well as missing a citation, the content you added was worded promotionally, or like it belong in a resume rather than an encyclopedia article. Thank you Melcous (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm TheBirdsShedTears. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, R Venugopal, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit in article "Daniel Barwick"

  Re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Barwick&oldid=1007277007: how odd that you consider the subject of the article to be an unreliable source! In future, I would suggest to you that it might be appropriate to engage in a discussion via one of the "Talk" pages before making such a reversion.
  Would you care to explain why you consider Mr Barwick, himself, to be an unreliable source as to where he currently resides and what might constitute a more reliable source? You're welcome to reply either here, on the "Talk" page for the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Barwick) or on my "Talk" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Turetzsr).
  Thank you!

SteveT (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Turetzsr it might seem odd to you, but this is how wikipedia works. All content must be verifiable by reference to reliable, independent, secondary sources. What you hear in a personal conversation with someone does not meet either of those requirements and so cannot be included (it also might possibly fall afoul of the conflict of interest guidelines). That might mean that sometimes wikipedia is out of date, but this is an encyclopaedia not a news site, and so it can be considered a 'tertiary' source - we collate what the secondary sources say, and so we wait for them to be up to date. Thanks Melcous (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear reply! I believe you're being overly pedantic about this but I don't feel strongly enough to restore my earlier edit. I did, however, remove the entire sentence as irrelevant and itself without verification despite being marked in June 2020. SteveT (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robina Fordyce Cowper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temperance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Why change from British English?

I am not sure your spelling changes were necessary on Dustin T. Duncan. Why change from "colour" to "color" or focussed to focus? I acknowledge that the subject of the article is an American, but I don't know that would require an "American" spelling? Is this change required by the style guide? Trilotat (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, per MOS:ENGVAR when a topic has "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation", it should use the English of that nation. A biography of a person born and active in the US seems a pretty strong tie to the US. It's standard practice for biographies of people to use the English variant of their nation. Melcous (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia page Edgar Pick

Extended content

Dear Melcous, I have reliable links to most of the points that you deleted on my page. The simplest way would be to send these to you by e-mail but I do not have your e-mail address. I hoped that being an academic colleague, you will be helpful. Here are the links that will help to restore my page: EDGAR PICK WIKIPEDIA MATERIAL, 24 January 2021 General Links Google https://www.google.com/search?q=Edgar+Pick&oq=Edgar+Pick&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j46i67i395j0i395l6.3851j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Google Scholar https://scholar.google.co.il/citations?user=Z98lHqcAAAAJ&hl=en Research Gate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edgar_Pick Publons https://publons.com/researcher/2890232/edgar-pick/ Orcid https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4625-3233 Scopus https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7005824890 Expertscape https://expertscape.com/au/nadh,%20nadph%20oxidoreductases/Pick,%20Edgar Gordon Research Conference – Invited Speaker, Discussion Leader Gordon Research Conference – Nox Family NADPH Oxidases -2012 (see Program Wednesday) https://www.grc.org/nox-family-nadph-oxidases-conference/2012/ Gordon Research Conference – Nox Family NADPH Oxidases -2014 (see Program Wednesday) https://www.grc.org/nox-family-nadph-oxidases-conference/2014/ Gordon Research Conference – Nox Family NADPH Oxidases -2016 (see Program Monday) https://www.grc.org/nox-family-nadph-oxidases-conference/2016/ Gordon Research Conference – Nox Family NADPH Oxidases -2018 (see Program Monday) https://www.grc.org/nox-family-nadph-oxidases-conference/2018/ Membership in Scientific Societies Member of the International Lymphokine Nomenclature Committee of the International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS) (1979) https://www.jimmunol.org/content/jimmunol/124/3/1510a.full.pdf Member of the Israel Immunological Society (IIS) https://www.iis.org.il/members Member of the American Association of Immunologists (AAI) SEE LETTER BELOW https://www.aai.org/ Member of Society of Leukocyte Biology (SLB) SEE LETTER BELOW https://www.leukocytebiology.org/ Member of the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) https://www.asbmb.org/ SEE DIRECT CONFIRMATIN AT LINK BELOW https://society.asbmb.org/Profile?ID=11703 Member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) https://www.aaas.org/ Grant Support from the Israel Science Foundation https://www.isf.org.il/#/studies/2/undefined/undefined Link to my daughter Dr. Anat Pick https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sllf/film-studies/people/academic/profiles/pick.html In addition, see confirmation of: 1. Membership in AAI January 25, 2021 To Whom It May Concern: Edgar Pick, M.D., Ph.D., member number 00051444, was accepted as a Regular member of The American Association of Immunologists in 1997 and was approved for Emeritus membership on 1/21/2011. Dr. Pick is a member in good standing with AAI. AAI is an international, professional association founded in 1913 for the advancement of knowledge of immunology and related disciplines and to facilitate interchange of ideas and information among investigators in the various fields. The Journal of Immunology, one of the most widely read and cited scientific journals in the world, is an official publication of AAI. Over 8,800 scientists and clinicians belong to AAI. The categories of membership are Trainee, Regular, Associate, Emeritus, and Honorary. Regular membership requirements include:  possessing an M.D., Ph.D. or equivalent degree  being an established scientist with substantial achievement in a related discipline  being an author of one publication on an immunological topic in a reputable, English language, peer-reviewed journal If you have any questions concerning this AAI member, please feel free to call me at (301) 634- 7195. Sincerely, Jennifer Woods Jennifer J. Woods Membership Manager 2. Membership in SLB January 25, 2021 Edgar Pick, M.D.,Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology Sackler School of Medicine Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv 69978 Israel Dear Dr. Pick, On behalf of The Society for Leukocyte Biology (SLB), I am pleased to provide confirmation of your membership status. According to our records you joined the society in 1995 and have been a member in good standing. You were accepted to the society as a regular member based on your scientific accomplishments as provided in your curriculum vitae and given your publication record. Given your esteemed tenure, you are now an Emeritus member of SLB. The goals of the Society are to promote the discipline of leukocyte biology by: 1. Promoting research and scientific endeavor in the field. 2. Promoting the study of leukocyte biology by young investigators. 3. Promoting the field to a wide audience, including other scientists and people interested in science. 4. Promoting and extending current understanding of the importance of leukocyte biology, particularly in regard to the physiology of these cells and their relationship to the immune system. 5. Promoting education and further understanding of leukocytes' importance in disease and their application to biotechnology. If you have any questions or require further confirmation of your membership, please contact membership@leukocytebiology.org. We look forward to your continued membership in SLB. Sincerely, Jennifer Holland Executive Director Society for Leukocyte Biology jholland@leukocytebiology.org Thank you for your assistance, Peptide Walking (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Edgar Pick, M.D.,Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology Sackler School of Medicine Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv 69978 Israel Tel: 972-3-6419833 (home) Mobile: 972-505-698254 E-mail: epick@tauex.tau.ac.il http://scholar.google.co.il/citations?user=Z98lHqcAAAAJ&hl=en https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4625-3233 https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7005824890 https://publons.com/researcher/2890232/edgar-pick/ http://expertscape.com/au/nadh,%20nadph%20oxidoreductases/Pick,%20Edgar https://researchoutreach.org/articles/reactive-oxygen-species-heart-innate-immunity/

Edgar Pick - Small supplement to User Talk of today

Here is a description of my scientific work for laymen: https://researchoutreach.org/articles/reactive-oxygen-species-heart-innate-immunity/

Peptide Walking (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Edgar Pick

Peptide Walking, you should make suggestions on the article's talk page not here, and if you use the Template:Request edit that is the most helpful, and the most likely to get a good response. You can follow the simple directions here: Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Thank you Melcous (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Edgar Pick - Peptide Walking not recognized

Dear Melcous I did what you suggested and introduced the links via Talk. However my text is marked as not recognized. Can you help? Peptide Walking (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Edgar Pick

Edgar Pick - Peptide Walking Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title

Dear Melcous, I am lost. See: Peptide Walking "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title" Can you help? 132.66.237.205 (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Edgar Pick

Hi Peptide Walking, try following these steps (and start with a small request - one clear simple change you would like to see made):

1. Click this link to Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard
2. Click the blue button second from the bottom of the page "I have a conflict of interest"
3. In the white box replace "Page Name" with "Edgar Pick" (without quotation marks, making sure the spelling and spacing is exactly correct)
4. Beneath that box, click the blue box "Create edit request"
5. On the new page that opens, leave everything at the top and bottom the same, but fill in the details after each of the three dot points in the middle (What I think should be changed; Why it should be changed; and References supporting the possible change)
6. Once you have finished that, scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the white button "Show preview" which will show you what the page will look like with what you have added
7. If you are happy with this, scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the blue button "Pulbish changes" which will finalise your edit request.

Thanks Melcous (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Mike Feghali

Hi, how can I improve page? You mean i should add more citations? or should i wait till the subject becomes more famous..?Jimmypapas (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Nicola Spurrier

Great work on the Nicola Spurrier page, excellent stuff Johnorchard (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Wolfram Kleiss

Hi Dear. Thanks for your comment and tag on Wolfram Kleiss. Please edit it as required for improvement or let me know required corrections in order to do and tag removing.

Thanks.Shahram 08:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, Melcous. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GirthSummit _(blether) 14:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit thanks for your email - I appreciate the thought, but no it's not something I'm interested in. Happy editing. Melcous (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Melcous, thanks for your response, and the same to you - happy editing. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Grace Tame

Hi, I took your advice about the word "girl" -- certainly didn't mean it to be offensive. Not sure what (if any) other issues you have, but the previous version lacked detail on a number of points. Let me know if there are any specific issues. VisitingSamG (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

VisitingSamG I have reverted your edit again and suggest you either make smaller changes one at a time, or start a discussion on the talk page and seek consensus for your proposed changes. But the other issues with your edit included the addition of unsourced commentary (e.g. about Morrison and Stoker) and sections that are more about other people (e.g. Bester, Arndt, Fisher, Funnell etc) rather than focusing on the person whom this article is a biography about. Melcous (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Chief Peter Kehinde Asu

Good day Dear Melcous, happy easter celebtation. Trust you are doing good?

kindly have some respect for the dead, by taking out the error templates you put up on thd article above. Thank you in anticipation.

Eyitayo osunkoya, wikipedia is not the place for memorials or obituaries. Just because someone has recently died, does not mean the encyclopedia article about them is treated any differently - it still needs to meet the criteria for notability and sourcing. Templates noting this are not "error templates" or a sign of disrespect for the person, but a note on improvements needed to the article. Rather than publishing an article that has these issues, in future you should consider using the article for creation process to submit for review beforehand. Melcous (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You sound very aggressive and grumpy, one time you called my article a resume , another time you call it an obituary or a memorial. Every Wikipedia creator uses article for creation process to submit and this article isn’t any different. You can be kind enough to improve the article rather than tag it, you know?

He is a very notable person and meets the sourcing took a while to gather, like I stated in the article. He was a very private person, not everyone likes their trumpets blown.

Eyitayo osunkoya (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Eyitayo osunkoya I am neither aggressive nor grumpy, just being direct. You did not use the Articles for creation process for this article, you directly published it to the main space of the encyclopedia, which means it can and will immediately be scrutinised as to whether it meets wikipedia's core guidelines - which include establishing notability and being properly referenced to reliable sources. I did make some small improvements the article, including moving it to the correct title, as well as adding maintenance templates to flag remaining issues. It is also worth noting that it is not "your article" and if you have a connection with the person it is about such that you feel offended when someone edits the article (which saying things like "have some respect for the dead" and "he was a very private person" suggest), then perhaps you should not be editing it at all. My suggestion is that rather than posting here on my talk page, you read up the issues the templates flag and seek to address them. Thank you Melcous (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no connection to the article. Obviously, You are just being biased, that’s all. Hitting from one wrong guess to another false accusation dear. You call those, improvements? Interesting! Eyitayo osunkoya (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Eyitayo osunkoya, please don't throw around random accusation of bias - try to focus on content not editors. Do not post on my talk page again. Melcous (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello there.

I just wanted to drop you a very quick note for providing some introductory guidance to myself on my Talk page and on a couple of edits that I have recently made. Hopefully I was as upfront as possible when initially introducing myself and I now understand the COI policy.

Many thanks Gentleman18 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Gentleman18 and for your understanding and constructive approach to the issue. I hope you are able to offer your editing skills to other topics and articles and find editing here a positive experience. If you have questions you think I might be able to answer feel free to ask, or as I see you have done, use the Teahouse as a really great resources as you're getting started. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Louis Lortie

Dear Melcous,

Louis Lortie Can you please justify the following : Revert promotional and unsourced content added by paid editor.

The mandatory disclosure had been posted on my User Page days before I got your message/reversion of my edits, therefore Wikipedia’s policies have been followed as required. Also, can you please justify the reversion by marking it as: promoted unsourced content. Please, take the time to actually read and analyse the edits before reverting them and marking them as mentioned. It has clearly been reverted without any valid justification, paid advocacy is not a synonym of promoted content!

Lia Navarrete (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Lia Navarrete, no paid editing is not a synonym for promotional content, but adding unsourced content about what a person "enjoys" or has "established" is the kind of wording that belongs on their own website not in an encyclopaedia. I did "actually" read your edits and I found them promotional and resume-like. As my edit summary said, paid editors are kindly asked not to directly edit affected articles but to instead use the talk page to request edits and abide by the conflict of interest policy. I suggest you do so. Melcous (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, the mandatory disclosure on your user page was posted 2 days after you made the edits, and you did not disclose in your edit summaries or on the article talk page at the time, so no, you did not follow the policy as required. Melcous (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for your detailed response. Lia Navarrete (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexander James Kent

Hi Melcous

Alexander James Kent

Thanks for editing this page and in particular for your attention to detail. I have added some external sources to the positions and honours section and made the selected works more concise. It would be helpful if you would please advise on any further improvements to address your concerns in placing the 'like resume' tag so that this can be removed. Thanks! Cantiana (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed for your edits, Melcous, and further guidance on improving this entry. I have added some further citations where indicated and so hopefully this is OK now but feel free to say if otherwise.Cantiana (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your further scrutiny of this page, Melcous. I'm a little puzzled, though. You asked for citations to sources verifying data like the subject's qualifications and professional experience, but then highlight that the sources I inserted are too close to the subject to be suitable. NB - I have no problem with the need to back up information through verifiable sources, but it may be difficult to find these for such specific points of biographical information that are also not too closely related to the subject. Also, I note and appreciate your help in reducing the resume-style elements, but this biography does not seem to be so different from other academic biographies in this regard, e.g. Barry Cunliffe. I'm just trying to reconcile the seemingly variable standards in arriving at an acceptable and informative result.Cantiana (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cantiana and thanks for your messages - and for your work on this article. I think it is looking better but there is still room for improvement. I understand your frustration with adding sources and then finding there is another issue! It's not just the sources that you have recently added, but that the article as a whole is largely sourced to non-independent sources. But the goal of wikipedia is to reflect what reliable, independent sources say about a person, not what they say about themselves. If independent sources cannot be found, then it might be better to trim the content back to what can actually meet this criteria, which would also deal with the resume-like issue. Personally, I would say sometimes less is more in an encyclopedic biography. This can contribute to notability as well. Thanks Melcous (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Melcous and thanks for your thoughtful response. I have added some more references and replaced many of those (agreeably) too close to the author with more third-party sources. I guess it is difficult to find academic biographies on Wikipedia that read less like a resume, but please point me to an example if applicable - NB, I am open to learning how to be a better editor! I note that you removed the expert comments section from the Selected works for being less-than-encyclopedic - if there is a bias towards printed material it would seem odd, but my view is that these contributions were informative expert opinion pieces and not personal blogs. If you still agree they are not worth putting on to help readers, fine; I wasn't sure if you followed any of these links before deleting. Cantiana (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Melcous. I have followed your advice and cut this back to be more encyclopedic and less like a resume. Hopefully, this resolves the issues and the tags are no longer needed, but please feel free to suggest further edits as necessary - very grateful for your suggestions as always.Cantiana (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, Melcous. Thanks very much indeed for applying your editing talents to this entry - it reads much better now.Cantiana (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries Cantiana, I agree it is much better as an encyclopedia article now. Thanks for your work on it and for your engagement in resolving the issues. Melcous (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Susan Francia

Hi there, I noticed that you reverted my edit on Susan Francia. Could you consider re-instating my edit? I wrote that extra piece because the written section to the wikilink was rather limited and hardly mentioned the enormity of her mother's contributions to mitigating the current COVID-19 pandemic, by providing the groundbreaking research necessary for the development of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. The brief script for Katalin Karikó should be expanded within Susan Francia's page, in order for web crawlers to index, and for easy searching on search engines such as Google, Bing, etc. Leesjy2k (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Leesjy2k and thanks for your message. The lead section of an encyclopedia article about her daughter is not the place to highlight the "enormity" of someone's contributions, nor is how it will be indexed by web crawlers relevant. Those seem to me to show a misunderstanding of wikipedia's purpose. The WP:LEAD should be a summary of the subsequent article about the subject of that article and why they (ie Francia) are notable, not someone else. Melcous (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Repalle Shiva Praveen Kumar

Hi Melcous, while deleting the edits made to Repalle Shiva Praveen Kumar you mentioned 'Please do not add promotional material and not indulge in soapboxing, advertising or promotion'.

I would like to inform that I added information to the said page along with proper sources. I had given links to every single statement. I was trying to build the page in a neutral and unbiased manner. The information I mentioned deserves mention in the wikipedia. still you deleted the information. can you please reinstate the information I added to the page. Thanks 13 April 2021

Thanks for your message Sagarika48 but what you have said here is not accurate. You added an entire paragraph (starting with the words "In a career spanning 21 years") that was completely unsourced and read promotionally. If you cannot see why phrases like "important assignments", "utmost sensitivity" and "won the hearts and minds" do not belong in an encyclopedia then you have not understood what we mean by neutrality. You also added an unsourced list of "Important positions held" (a heading which is also not neutral) which belongs in a resume or on someone's own website, not in an encyclopedia. Melcous (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi melcous, I understood your points. Can you build this article with more facts. I can give you resources also. for example:

Worlds most renowned publications Springer Publications has published the work of Dr. R S Praveen Kumar in its series “Empowering teachers for a better world”. His work is selected as one among the six nations shortlisted across the world Sources: 1. https://www.amazon.in/gp/product/B086978KT2/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1 (page Nos: 87 to 103)

looks like i am still not very familiar with wikipedia rules. AS you are already building this page, i can help you with the information. I sincerely feel he is a person whose work needs to be highlighted. Other than that i have no personal interest nor am i related to him. aware of his good work and feel his good work should be highlighted.

Once you post this information in the page i will delete this information here so that your talk page would not become messy. Thank you

David Haigh

Dear sir, can you advise why you removed the items concerning Haigh and his appearance on the 60 minutes Australia show and been mentioned in various news articles concerning his recent activities, thank you Martin Paul Ireland (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Martin Paul Ireland, as my edit summaries have stated, I have reverted edits because they added unsourced content to the article. One of your edits added both sourced and unsourced content. If you want to restore that which is sourced, as long as it is written in a neutral way and you do not have a conflict of interest, you are free to do so. Also, please don't assume that every editor here is male. Melcous (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Melcous, thank you for the information and as I am new to this and want to be accurate could you please tell me what part is non sourced.  I would be extremely grateful if you could help, I am trying to learn exactly how this all works and be correct and completely neutral
Dear Melcous, I have realised what you mean, the second paragraph has no external references, I have found two references that are external, they both definitely refer to the acrimonious split, one is definitely from a different view of the argument to the other, each side appears to have an opinion, so the fair and correct way is to site both sources, that way it is totally neutral. I have no conflict of interest and clarity is my objective - I must say that the situation concerning the poor princess does cause me concern, but that is only objective, and I have no conflict, although I would like to see justice, is that acceptable to say and remain neutral, I hope so.Martin Paul Ireland (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Melcous, can you please advise what is contested, or disputed on the David Haigh page, as I am happy to amend and comply, but the sources referenced are mainstream news channels, and their information has been republished by many others and factual, I do not write with favour or criticism of the subject, I am trying to be published current and accurate information that is both relevant, factual and noteworthy Martin Paul Ireland (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

why do you hate me

hello. vp here. wondering why you took a large chunk of information off of my very important wikipedia page. this is concerning. and weird. I advise you add my information back on. sincerely, the spelling bee champion. PS if it is out of jealousy just admit it.

I don't hate you - I don't know you. But you should understand that it is not your wikipedia page - please see WP:OWN; and this project does not exist to promote your achievements. I removed the information because it was not sourced nor was it notable. Thanks Melcous (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Luke Hughes (furniture designer) page - reverting of changes

Good day to you. Just a quick message to seek advice really. I notice that you reverted my edit in the same manner Graywalls did. Apologies, I had forgotten to log-in when I changed it back last time. However, that doesn't change the validity of my edit. I was wondering why you reverted the edit back again? My edit meets the 'when to remove' guidelines as far as I can see. I have left message on Graywalls Talk page too and there is already conversation on the article's Talk page. I'm not sure what else to do here. LAficionado (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

LAficionado please see my comments on the article talk page. Can you please explain how you came across this particular article's talk page, and whether you have a connection either to the subject of the article or the other editors? Melcous (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again Melcous. I have responded on the article's Talk page to the questions (as you've asked the same questions there too). I came to this page from 'Sainsbury Laboratory Cambridge University' where I had linked to after making edits to the 'Striling Prize' page. After seeing the template messages (and being slighlty confused as to why they were there), I checked the Talk page for discussion before going ahead and correcting the article. Like any other page, I do not have a connection to the subject (nor any other editors). I have merely read the book 'Furniture in Architecture'. LAficionado (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

EEA and Norway Grants advice

Hello, Melcous, Thank you for your advice! The article was not written with the intention of advertising, but informing about the program. Various sources have been added in order to verify the content. All the issues mentioned in the warnings have been addressed. Please let me know if there is a way to remove the maintenance template without being blocked.

Thanks again! Icelieno (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Icelieno, and thanks for adding the paid user declaration on your user page. I have removed the external links maintenance template as that issue has been resolved. I have added a 'paid contributions' template for now, flagging that an independent editor will need to review for those other issues. I appreciate the distinction you have made between "advertising" and "informing" but in many ways the effect is the same. It may take a little time for this to be resolved, but it will get there if we work together. Two other things for you to consider for now:

1. Can you please clarify if there is a relationship between you and the similarly named editor Lienoice? If it was you using an alternate count, please see WP:MULTIPLE - I think you would need to declare both accounts and then choose only to use one from here on in. If it is someone else who works with you, they will also need to follow the requirements to declare their status and abide by the conflict of interest policy
2. I see you have made a request on the article talk page. The best way for you to do this in future is to the use the Template:Request edit, which both appropriately discloses your conflict of interest in this context and notifies other editors that a request is pending. That page also gives good advice on how to make requests.

Thanks Melcous (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Bergen County Academies - advert tag

Hi, I've been trying to edit the Bergen County Academies page and I noticed that you added a tag that said the page was like an advertisement. I don't necessarily disagree, but I've looked through the page again and it seems pretty neutral to me, so I'm just a little confused. Are there specific concerns that you have, perhaps with any particular section(s)? I can try to address them while I'm continuing to edit the page in the coming days. BappleBusiness (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Melcous, just checking in again since you may have missed my message. I thought that most of the advertisement content was removed a while ago, just looking at the history of the page. Do you have any specific concerns? Otherwise, I am going to remove the tag. Thanks! BappleBusiness (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The Last Drive-in with Joe Bob Briggs

If there is a better place to discuss the issues about this page I would greatly appreciate it. Personally, I simply disagree with the tags you are leaving and have spoken with people about this issue when it was on the MonsterVision page and they were resolved. Like I said, other shows have way more information, much of the information here is official, and there aren't many other sources other than Shudder. Thank you.

I have left a message on your talk page. Melcous (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to chat with me, I simply wish to learn more about your perspective, as I disagree, and have talked with people about it before and came to an agreement.

There are thankfully plenty of secondary sources I can swap in, specifically various articles and reviews written about the series online. It will just take a lot of time though, as I have already spent now basically a full week on this project, saw it very edited, and now at least need a break from it. I will return to do that in the near future, while also continuing to update the Drive-in totals/episodes, and only the most minimal information in the body if anything. I'm at least just glad the body is good as is now, or I guess good enough. Also, highly recommend you check out other show pages, as I mirrored those for this project, so they may be in need of your Wikipedia formatting expertise. Thank you Moncayk1 11:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Anne M. Schot

Melcous, your tag on the page links to "self-publication/questionable". For this woman's biography I relied on the CV published in the journal Blumea, a first class journal. As with many academics, life history sources are often limited to small info in academic publications or university web sites. Her notability is established (a long list of currently accepted taxa), her casualised and broken career is so typical of a woman academic. Her CV is not self-published, it is published in Blumea, for the same reason it is not questionable. Brunswicknic (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Brunswicknic, I understand the issue, but the tag is there to highlight that the content relies on sources that are not independent from the subject. There is also content within the article that is not footnoted or properly sourced. The purpose of the maintenance tag is to flag that there is work to be done on the article, and hopefully attract editors to help out. Melcous (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Brian M. Frier {Like resume|date=April 2021}

Dear Melcous, Thank you for revising Brian M. Frier. I would greatly appreciate receiving suggestions to improve the way this article is written. What changes would be needed for it not to be considered "like a resume", as I am sure you would like to see. Thanks.Neuralia (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Neuralia and thanks for your message. There are various changes that can be made, here are a few suggestions. Phrasing like "He has served on various government and academic committees" with a reference to one government committee is resume like - just state the fact of the committee that the reference verifies and leave the vague broad claim out unless it can be properly referenced. Similarly phrasing like "he has taught both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels" with no reference - if he has taught at particular institutions, name them and provide references that verify that. The subsequent list of conferences spoken at is also the kind of list that would be found in a resume - are a couple of these particularly notable? If so, can they be explained in prose and the list culled to be more encyclopedic and less resume like? Phrasing like "moving up the academic ladder" should be avoided too - as an encyclopedia wikipedia articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. I hope that is helpful. Thanks Melcous (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Than you Melcous. I have made the corresponding changes to the article, hopefully justifying the removal of the tag. Your teachings are greatly appreciated.Neuralia (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Fadlo Khuri

Multiple users and I have fact checked all sources in this entry. No user who has deleted or section blanked this entry has presented any contradictory source, and most or all of them are employees of subject or his institution and admit so in their comments. Kindly restore my edit and ability to make edits.

Arlo3415 as a brand new editor to wikipedia, please make sure you have read the policies about multiple accounts and coordinating with other editors to ensure you are abiding by them. One editor is an employee, not "most", and I certainly have no connection to the subject of the article. There is a current discussion on the talk page about how to proceed from here - I suggest you join in there rather than simply making the same edit that previous editors have made and has been reverted, as it will likely be reverted again as edit warring. Thank you Melcous (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Wil Gafney

We seem to both have created a page for the same person at the same time. A colleague and myself created under Wilda C. Gafney and you Will Gafney. Would you be okay if I worked on combining the two pages to create one stronger article?--Hhill1909 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hhill1909 - wow, thanks for spotting that, sorry I didn't notice. I think someone else had also created a draft - great minds think alike! Yes I'm happy for you to work on combining them, but I'm also happy to help if it's useful - I will have a look, and feel free to ask me any questions here. Perhaps use the one I created as a starting point (simply because it's structure and formatting are, I believe, more standard), add to that whatever you think is missing from what you have done and then once we are both happy, we can keep one and make the other a redirect. Thanks Melcous (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: Difference between revisions

Hi Melcous

I got your message about the edits to the page Cam Donaldson and can confirm I am not being paid for updating it. I'm an Administrator at Glasgow Caledonian University and work with Cam Donaldson. He sent me a request yesterday asking me to update his page as he is unable to access it. I can send on the emails if you need confirmation. The main changes were to add a journal article, change his profile and edit some of the text as he has recently changed roles. If you need any more information, please let me know.

Best wishes

Karen Karenmcdairmant (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Karenmcdairmant and thanks for your reply. Please read through the WP:PAID and WP:COI policies here, because if you are editing as part of your work, then you are considered a paid editor. And regardless, because you have a relationship with the subject of the article, you definitely have a conflict of interest and need to abide by that policy. You should also tell Cam that he should not be editing the article either. Either of you can use the talk page to request edits instead. Thank you Melcous (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Kim Michele Richardson

Hi, Melcous, thanks so much for your note and any help re Kim Michele Richardson's pages. I apologize for not answering sooner, but I'm still navigating the site. I am trying make sure the pages don't contain misleading, private and inaccurate content.

Thank you for reaching out to me. JER Mitchell (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome JER Mitchell. As I said on your talk page, the best thing you can do is join the WP:COIN discussion, and if you do have any connection to the subject of the articles you are editing, please disclose that - you do not need to say exactly who you are, but you do need to disclose if there is a connection of some kind. Then you can request edit changes to the article, and other editors can review them. I have asked for other experienced editors to look into what the other editor has been doing as well. It can take a while to navigate the site and learn how things are done, which is why asking for help and responding to other editors (you can do so on your own talk page or here), is the best thing to do rather than continuing to revert or "edit war" with someone. Thanks Melcous (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

David Ryu

Hi Melcous - I wanted to alert you that in recent weeks a lot of material that reads very self-promotional has been added to David Ryu again by an account that refers to itself as "public relations professional." I am going to attempt to do some cleanup myself but wanted to alert you since we have both worked on this article before. Thanks! CaliforniaThrasher (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up CaliforniaThrasher, I've had a look and made a few trims :) Melcous (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem Melcous. I made some too! Thanks for the teamwork. CaliforniaThrasher (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Fan Perspective on The Last Drive-In

Hello Melcous, hope you are doing well. I am very confused because we settled this issue and you yourself approved of this no longer being a fan perspective article after we both deleted nearly half of it. Since then, nothing has been added other than the official episode summaries as the show has aired. Additionally, I am still working on the list of secondary sources. Nevertheless, I am curious why you changed your mind and what now has to be done to change this. I also want to know how we can avoid this in the future. Thank you. Moncayk1 17:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Moncayk1. I'm not sure where this issue was "settled" - the last message I left on your talk page noted that there was still plenty more that could be done, and there is not yet a talk page created for the article where things can be discussed. But the reality is that your sole purpose editing here appears to be to constantly keep updating this article with every detail including excessively long summaries of episodes, ratings and awards given etc. That is exactly what a fan would do, which means you are editing it from a fan-point-of-view, and that continues to be how the article reads, rather than as an encyclopedia article. The main goal here is to record what independent, reliable, secondary sources have said about a topic, rather than this kind of primary content which more appropriately belongs elsewhere. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately, I just want to know exactly what you're looking for, so I can make that happen. Those are official summaries, it makes zero sense to cut those downs. Additionally, plenty of other shows have longer summaries that aren't even official, they're fan written. Like would you want more cut from the body of the article? I'm just very confused because you're asking to remove official information from this article, when endless other shows have way more of what I would say is nonsense and not even official. If you would like to start a talk page over there and go everything I'd be more than happy. Ultimately though I'm just not understanding the situation because you're saying get rid of official information from the shows themselves that even just a quick google search shows that people are looking for that information. I can totally understand removing more from the body though, that I am more than happy to discuss further. I just wish you would provide more clarity as all you're saying is cut cut cut, when other shows have insanely way more information, much of which isn't official while this is just plainly the description of each episode as said in each episode. Thank you, and I look forward to working this out because right now I'm not seeing what's going on. Also, I meant settled because you left a message saying stuff needed to be cut, I cut a lot, removed the disclaimer, you acknowledged that, and then said well the sources are still an issue which I'm working on. Ultimately, I'm sorry if this is an ongoing show that requires more information, leaving this out would be leaving out the most basic information from the show. You should see how much information I could add but I decided no that isn't official, that is more fan stuff, I'll literally just do their official summary. Lastly, I would love to work on other pages, but the continuous issues that have popped up with this one have prevented other projects I have planned to support Wikipedia. Moncayk1 23:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I want to be able to move on from this project, so I am happy to do what I can to make that happen. I wanted to put my best foot forward to start this process off by cutting out much of the body of the page, leaving only the date progression of the show at its minimum. Additionally, to address the episode descriptions, I have taken out the "In Memory of" portions and any additional note or disclaimer. I have no idea if this will be anywhere near enough what it takes, but all I can say is the body only has the basic timeline now, and everything left in the episode section are official descriptions from the episodes themselves, including those ratings, those are not my personal ratings. I may be a fan, but I simply chose this as my first project on Wikipedia and I want to move on to endless others, so I hope that you can help me do that instead of just leaving a tag and that's it. I am open to real suggestions that aren't just delete everything because you personally assume it isn't relevant. Let's discuss what matters and what can be taken out so we can make this a great page, and I can move on except for updating with new episodes. Then, for secondary sources, that is just taking more time, but it will 100% happen by the end of June. Thanks Moncayk1 00:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok Moncayk1, when you say that what you have included is "official information" and "official summaries" do you mean that you have copied them from somewhere else? Because if so, that in itself is a problem. A TV show can have its own website, and that is the place for that kind of content. The purpose of an encyclopedia is quite different. Melcous (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, these wouldn't be on any official Shudder stuff, you can check the Shudder link yourself that someone put on the page. Shudder has their own separate summaries, these are summaries for his segments. It's kind of confusing to describe, but ultimately my point is that these are the summaries that best describe the show and can be used by all. A description of the movie itself for example wouldn't tell you what's going on with the show because the movies aren't the show; segments exist without the movies now even. Shudder uses summaries of the movies because they're selling you the movie not necessarily the show which is Joe Bob Briggs'. These summaries are based on what was done for MonsterVision by those archiving that in the past. Meaning, Joe Bob Briggs did them like this for MonsterVision, and now in keeping that tradition alive, I was doing these for wikipedia in that same style, so I guess poor choice of words originally. Looking around, similar projects have attempted this, but gave up, leaving Wikipedia the only place for the summaries done the official drive-in way. Nevertheless, I'm curious about what you think of the changes, and if I should remove the "Silver Bolo Awards" and what would be enough? I also opened up a talk page over there as you recommended if you would like to continue there. Thanks Moncayk1 07:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Julius Natterer

Hi Melcous I've added sources on each point in the article. Please could you check if it is ok now? Thanks Yasminkaa (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Yasminkaa - you'll see that I removed the "unsourced" template, but added one about the fact that these are bare URLS (which has already done its job and led to an editor making a start on fixing that); and another, more significant issue, that most of these are not independent, secondary sources. Cheers Melcous (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Melcous, thanks for contributing to my article. So I can't help more because I don't know the code and It's really difficult for me. I hope an other peopler will improve it. Yasminkaa (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Dr. Koralnik Wikipedia Page

Hello Melcous,

My sincere apologies for the delayed response to your note! Thank you for informing me about Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. I apologize for causing any concern - to clarify, I work at Northwestern Medicine, and Dr. Koralnik's research regarding the neurological implications of COVID-19 has been groundbreaking, so as such, he has requested that I add an article to his biographical page to talk about the work he has done, as well as link to news stories that have covered the research. We simply just wanted to cover the work he has done, but if this is in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines, please let me know and I'll inform Dr. Koralnik. Thank you again, Melcous!

Best regards,Nathaniel.hams (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Nate18:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel.hams (talk • contribs)

COI - Nunzio Impellizzeri

Dear Melcous, My editing of the post on Nunzio Impellizzeri apparently provoked a COI from your side. I have no advertising intentions, nor do I intend a self-promotion. I just want to increase the general information about the Swiss choreographer Nunzio Impellizzeri. Possibly my editing has led to misunderstandings. Any advice from your side is welcome. I would therefore like to ask to remove the COI.

Dance-co (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dance-co and thank you for your message. The Conflict of Interest template was added to the article because there have been three separate editors (yourself, Tanzmanie and Dance-community) who have edited only this article and have included the type of content that suggests a connection with the subject of the article. The question of conflict of interest is not whether your intentions are to advertise, but whether you have an external relationship of some kind with the subject of the article. If you do, the first step you need to take (and the first step towards having the template removed) is to disclose it. Can you please also advise whether you have a connection to either of the other two accounts? Thank you Melcous (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Circe Sturm

Hi Melcous, I’m the above party in the entry you created. And I am concerned about my birthday being public information because it can be used for identity theft and my name is so unusual. Is there anyway to remove this information from the entry? Thanks, Circe

Hi 3Accurso3 and thanks for your message. Just to note, I didn't create the article or add that information, I'm just the editor who most recently edited the article. If information is on wikipedia, it usually means it is publicly available elsewhere, probably in one of the sources cited. But if there is information you as the subject of the article want private, I suggest either this page or this one will be the most helpful in guiding you as to what you can do next. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Kerrie Burn for deletion

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

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

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Sarojini Nadar DYK

Hi Melcous,

It looks like this article is eligible for DYK, so I suggest that you nominate it: Template talk:Did you know. I can help you with that, if you like! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Figureskatingfan Christine and thanks for the suggestion - I'm not experienced with DYK but am happy for this to be done, so I'd love your help - if you can talk me through what to do? Thanks Melcous (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yah, we can do that. I'll shoot you an email and see what we can arrange. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, I have just created Elizabeth Mburu, do you think that would be worth nominating for DYK? (not sure if it is quite long enough, but you might have some ideas how to add to it?) Thanks, Melcous (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It certainly is long and new enough; it has to be at least 1500 characters (it's at almost 1600) and you have five days to nominate it after it's created (or after you expand it 5x). I can nominate it for you, but I think you could expand it more and since you have several more days, I suggest that you do. I don't think that you've utilized your sources well enough. For example, your first source (the interview with Mburu) states that she "became a believer" in 1993 and that her work with street children in the late 1990s inspired her to get more training, so she attended seminary, but you don't include it in the article. I think that it's important enough that you do. That's how I would paraphrase the content, but you can do it how you like. You also don't include that after she began to work in Kenya, she continued writing. I'm sure there's more content in the interview you can include, as well as in your other sources. That's a way you can increase the article's length and make it more comprehensive, which for me, is really important because articles about women don't tend to be long or comprehensive enough. I mean, I know that it's important to create as many articles about women (and especially women religious), but it's also important that they're comprehensive. That said, this article is eligible for DYK and I'd be happy to nominate it for you in its current state. If you decide to expand it, though, let me know before your five days are up (6/29), and I'll nominate it then. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks Figureskatingfan, I will have another look and see what updating I can do, and then have a go at nominating it myself. Melcous (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Brock Pierce falsified newspaper

Hi - can you please explain your reasoning for undoing the addition of the Controversies section to Brock Pierce's page? The addition includes two primary sources: the tweet by Brock containing the falsified headline; and the true 16/06/21 edition of the newspaper. I cannot see any possible reason for removing this amendment on the grounds of WP:RS.

Primary sources are not acceptable for this kind of information per WP:RS, and what you are doing is adding original research. You have also broken the clear three revert rule. If you do that again, you will likely find yourself blocked from editing here. Melcous (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nkandu Luo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patriotic Front.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Admission of conflict of interest: Thomas Fellows

Hi,

I am writing to admit that I have a conflict of interest when it comes to Fellows. I’m his publicist.

I have insider knowledge that his new book will get even more media coverage in the coming weeks and months. With that being said, may I feed you media articles and you include them on his page as you see fit?

Sorry for admitting this sooner. Makepeace222 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Makepeace222 thank you for your acknowledgment. As his publicist you do have a clear conflict of interest, but you are also a paid editor which means you are required by wikipedia's Terms of Use to properly disclose this which you have not yet done. I see that Drmies, a very experienced editor and administrator, has blocked you from directly editing the article - you should listen to their advice. You may suggest edits on the article's talk page and other editors can decide whether they should be included in the article. But no, you may not specifically "feed me media articles" and the fact that you have asked this suggests to me that you still have not understood that wikipedia is not here to promote your client in any way. Melcous (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You make valid points. Again, sorry I didn’t disclose this sooner. I’ll officially properly disclose this afternoon of tonight.

Melcous, while we're on the topic--it seems to me you're a pretty decent human being and a very fair editor. Maybe you should run for admin and then that old lobster-eating IP can bother you instead of me? Seriously, you wrote a ton of articles, you've never been blocked, I don't think you get in fights--you're perfect for the job. Think about it, please. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Drmies - and that is possibly the best reason I have heard to consider becoming an admin :) I will think about it again, but it has never been something that interests me much sorry. Thanks for you all do, Melcous (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I can throw in a couple other good reasons as well, but surely one good one is that you seem to be very collegial and have a great grasp of policies and, more importantly, common sense. Well, I'll be happy to twist your arm a bit if you think, at some point in the future, that the bit can be useful to you. I can tell you from my end that I think it would be useful to us. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

What the hell, Drmies, I'm only trying to make you feel useful. Otherwise I fear you're teaching undergrads who think Jeffrey Chowser is a second-string linebacker at LSU. By the way, Melcous, I second the request for you to become an admin. But years ago, when others were eager to nominate me, I had no interest, either. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

One more thing I must confess when it comes to editing Thomas Fellows' page

Hi,

I wanted to bring one other thing to your attention that I did wrong. All the edits I made were clearly sourced, although I admit, some were promotional. There was one edit, however, that was clearly misleading. That edit was the one about Tiger Woods. It is true that he is in Fellows’ book, and there was an article in the “Augusta Chronicle” stating this, but I went overboard in saying that the article claimed to have said that Woods has become a better person as a result of the suffering. The article never stated that.

Considering my client has benefited from Wikipedia in his own research in his own books, for me to to do something that egregious is the highest form of betrayal. I am truly sorry for my actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makepeace222 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Mburu

On 9 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Mburu, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elizabeth Mburu's book African Hermeneutics seeks to bring a uniquely African approach to interpreting the Bible? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Mburu. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Elizabeth Mburu), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Annita Demetriou

On 14 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Annita Demetriou, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Annita Demetriou is the first woman and youngest person elected as Speaker of Cyprus' House of Representatives? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Annita Demetriou. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Annita Demetriou), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sarojini Nadar

On 16 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sarojini Nadar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that South African theologian Sarojini Nadar examined the Book of Esther as a "text of terror" in normalizing rape culture? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sarojini Nadar. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sarojini Nadar), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

template

You are in error with this template and I have already written to you so I have removed it. Please do not assume guilty before proven innocent. I know your trying to help but this is incorrect so it needs to be removed. I had references, maybe my style is not so good? But its a lie to assume I have a close association with this person, its just not true

Kind regards

Steven Weinberg photo caption

Melcous, that reversion sure was quick. I see you have lots more experience as a Wikipedia editor that I ever will and I certainly respect that. Yet, when I first read that caption I thought it referred to the man on her left-hand side, like stage-left in theater, but then realized Weinberg is on her right-hand side. You're right, my edit didn't help much. I was thinking "right-hand" side, which is a little awkward. Is there a Wikipedia convention for this situation? The full caption identifies all the Nobelists and Queen Beatrix in L-R order, which is clear but maybe too long.

Do you agree that the original caption can be unclear, as it first struck me? Or do I just need to rethink this? "To her left" in a photo can not mean "on her left?"

Respectful regards,

Alphalurion (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Alphalurion

Hi Alphalurion, I have that article on my watchlist so just happened to log on not long after you had made the edit. I have changed it to be clearer by referring to the left of the photo and leaving out any reference to the other people in the photo. Melcous (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you Melcous! (Now, I know I need to study Wikipedia's guidelines and protocols, to be a better editor, instead of simply making little corrections when something strikes my ear wrong. By the way, wouldn't "in the photo" sound better than "of the photo"???) Again, I say, you have an impressive record of edits and original articles. Until another day, Alphalurion (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Alphalurion

Article

@Melcous: Just to let you know that Hendrik Sumendap, who you added your templates to isn't noteable. Catfurball (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Catfurball, you must have the wrong person, I didn't add to or edit any templates, I simply removed some incorrect formatting and added maintenance templates to that article. Melcous (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK nominations

Hi. Please see WT:DYK#Nominations out of order. Note that a bot always creates the date sections, so a user should never have to do it (unless the bot happens to be down). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and sorry about that Mandarax. I'm not sure how that happened honestly, I'm pretty sure when I did it no dates beyond the 16th were showing to me but that may well have been because I did something incorrectly when trying to follow the instructions. Cheers Melcous (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe things were running slow either with WP or your ISP, and the rest of the page didn't show up.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)