User talk:Melcous/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

DYK for Lilian Staple Mead

On 4 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lilian Staple Mead, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that suffragette Lilian Staple Mead was the only female student ever at Adelaide's Prince Alfred College? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lilian Staple Mead. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lilian Staple Mead), 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.

Schwede66 12:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ronald DePinho

I cut a lot of the peacockery from Ronald DePinho and then removed the tags. Hope you concur. Also broke out as separate paragraph with quote, the contentious mess he made of being president. I have no connection whatsoever to DePinho or MD Anderson. Came to this thru a Teahouse query by the paid editor who had added that long list of awards. David notMD (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks David notMD, it is looking a lot better. I have removed a bit more unsourced resume like wording etc but yes concur with the tags being removed based on the editing done. Cheers Melcous (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Constitutional Amendment (Adult Suffrage) Act 1894

Hello Melcous, I have just promoted your DYK for Constitutional Amendment (Adult Suffrage) Act 1894. The overall quality and hook quality led me to this, however I had a misgiving about the current single and very dry sentence lead. It is painfully short, and not at the level of quality of the rest of the article. If you could add another couple of sentences to the lead in the next day or two before its main page appearance, especially so that it covers the expansion of the amendment beyond the original intention, that would be greatly appreciated. Best, CMD (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Chipmunkdavis, that is a really good point (I don't think I edited the lead much at all in my expansion of the article, that was a miss)! I have added a couple of sentences to the lead in an attempt to summarise the rest of the article - please let me know if you have any suggestions or feel free to make any additional changes. Cheers Melcous (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I did notice it was mostly a holdover from the previous version. Looking over it, the only concern that jumps out is "Status: Repealed" in the infobox, which is not explained in the article. Presumably it was replaced a new bill with similar provisions, but you never know... CMD (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Radha Stirling for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Radha Stirling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radha Stirling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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.

Niftysquirrel (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Tagging of Sarah Jane Lancaster

Hi there, Melcous, and thank you for your careful attention to new biographies of women. I was nevertheless rather surprised to see you tagged Sarah Jane Lancaster as essay-like and as requiring more citations. I've just been looking at the article myself and it appears to me that the editor (who has not yet created any other articles) has carefully drawn on several reliable sources available about this Australian religious figure who died as early as 1934. In my opinion, these are perfectly adequate for the biography in question and I have removed the tag. As for the essay look, I could not detect any personal views of the editor. To me, the account seems to reflect the views expressed in the sources referenced. I'm leaving the tag for the time being but would be interested to have your reactions on what you feel needs attention. BTW, I'm glad to see that as a member of WiR you continue to write lots of interesting new biographies of women. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Constitutional Amendment (Adult Suffrage) Act 1894

On 13 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constitutional Amendment (Adult Suffrage) Act 1894, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that South Australia became the first place in the world to give women the right to stand for parliament due to an opponent's "great miscalculation"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constitutional Amendment (Adult Suffrage) Act 1894. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Constitutional Amendment (Adult Suffrage) Act 1894), 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, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

In reference to Josh Frydenberg

Hello Melcous, I noticed that you just rolled back my edits on Josh Frydenberg. I recognise it was a mistake to click minor edits but I believe that my sources are impeccable. Could you please suggest any improvements?

Thank you! --WitnessPepper (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

WitnessPepper, for starters, the whole citizenship stuff is already in the article in other sections, written more clearly and better sourced than what you added. It is also recommended to avoid having separate "Controversy" sections - see WP:CRITS. Whether something about the other matter should be included is probably a question of whether it is WP:UNDUE, and given multiple editors have disagreed with you, you should follow WP:BRD and take it to the talk page seeking consensus rather than re-inserting it. Thanks Melcous (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Questions

Hi there. I am not sure what you think the issue is I came across a blabber mouth article that said Todd has started a new project - Todd Kerns Talks to his friends. I did not link the actual talks but just the news article. Also, how would you put that he was featured in the TV show's HEELS soundtrack? Perhaps rather than just removing the work of his I find - editing it in away you feel is better for the wikipage? I do not work for Mr. Kerns, nor do I have any profit from any of the things I am sharing. I also noticed you removed the article saying that SMKC was the first band on the new Gibson label? Why? They do not have a cd out, nor did this article bring any profit or promotion to the band. I cited newspapers that had run the information.

Hello and standard ANI notice.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --- Possibly ☎ 09:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not about you. It is regarding that Mackelvine walled garden that you did such fine work on. Hope all is well! --- Possibly ☎ 09:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries, Possibly. I see the user page has been edited to tone down their accusation, but totally understand your frustration. Thanks for your work on this too, hopefully this can lead to a clear agreement to abide by policies and use talk pages from here on. Thanks Melcous (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Alia Issa

On 29 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alia Issa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alia Issa, the first woman competitor to enter during the 2020 Paralympics opening ceremony, is the first female refugee to compete at any Paralympic Games? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alia Issa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alia Issa), 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, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Jonah Smith for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jonah Smith is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonah Smith (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

External links in articles

Hello Melcous Thanks for the message you sent to my colleague Kermoder requesting that external links were not added to articles. I’m HelsKRW and am managing a project we’re working on to add institutional PhD thesis content to Wikidata and update Wikipedia biographies with thesis details where the author already has a Wikipedia page. This is our first Wikimedia project so I and a few colleagues are new to this and keen to learn and engage in discussion with others. In this instance I carefully examined the external links guidance before beginning the project and understood that a link to a full text thesis in an institutional repository falls into an acceptable external link, linking to a legally distributed copy of the work, and not being prohibited by the guidance given under restrictions on linking or links normally to be avoided. Additionally I discussed our project with a former Wikimedian in residence from another institution, in particular discussing the use of external links in Wikipedia, and the suggestion from them was that putting a sentence in the biography, linking to the thesis in the repository, would be useful. Based on this the external links Kermoder has added seem to fit the guidance I’ve read and I think is the most useful way of linking users to an open access copy of the work. It would be very helpful to discuss further as I’m hoping we can reinstate the links that have been removed. Thanks and best wishes HelsKRW (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks HelsKRW. Please see WP:EL which is very clear that external links like this should not be placed in the body of an article. Putting a sentence in the biography, with a link to the thesis in the footnote is fine. Melcous (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quick response Melcous. I had been following the guidance on the page you linked to, particularly point 2 of WP:ELYES, and as such understood links to the repository, as the full text copy of the work, legally available, meant that they fell into the category of 'acceptable external links' and so would be useful to include in the main body of the text. HelsKRW (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

HelsKRW, WP:ELYES is about what might be acceptable to go in an "external links" section at the end of an article, not within the body of the main text. (See the "Important points to remember" section above, in particular point 2 and its footnote. Thanks Melcous (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the detail of this Melcous, and apologies for the external links that have been added as a result of misunderstanding the guidance. I've updated and circulated our internal project documentation. HelsKRW (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Melcous

Hi Melcous, I’m reaching out for help in getting this page straightened out. There have been constant attacks by one or two conflicted persons with whom I am in litigation with in real life. These people put the “lawsuit” section there in the first place. Their purpose is only to use it to promote their own real life cause, not because their content is really important to my bio. None of what they post on my page (yes, not “my” page but the page about me) is ever neutral or complete, but without fail is biased, misrepresentation, cherry picked or out and out false. I’ve read many of the WP rules applicable to biography of a living person and controversial matters that might be defamatory are extremely disfavored as are edits by COI persons involved with the subject in real life controversy (controversy made and perpetuated by these COIs). Please have a look at the creation and history of edits. Who are the two persons who come to WP only to edit my page and focus mostly on the “lawsuits” section or try by innuendo to undermine the basic story of my round the world flight. I’m happy actually that the page is protected but it’s been reverted to a version that has the heavy hand of these COI and sockpuppet persons. I’m very transparent, disclosing who I am and not hiding behind a pseudonym. I was in the middle of an extensive edit then found I was blocked when I tried to publish it. I’m happy to have guidance from a neutral and experienced WP editor like yourself and if you look over my talk page I have refrained from editing myself and asked for help on many occasions, with only limited success. I’m also not so particularly sensitive to writing on the subject of litigation I’m involved in. Actually, civil lawsuits are fairly boring but I won’t tolerate these few people repeatedly vandalizing my page with half-truths and distortions, that make it seem like My around the world record is being challenged. I think you may get it and help with a viable solution that serves the interests of WPs audience. Thank you, Julie Wang AthenaMT (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Marrar

I have been trying to add some information on the history of Marrar, a village in NSW Australia, using a 1979 book "A History of Marrar and District". (Back story: I digitised this book in 1998 and some pieces written by my parents and brothers on the history of Marrar, creating a site marrar.com that lapsed and disappeared about 10 years ago.) I have attempted to create a new site containing these items. Next I added some text from this 1979 book to the Marrar Wikipedia page, with some links to my new site for people wanting more information. I'm not sure what I can do there. The information I wish to add to Wikipedia is not my work, its from a published book. I can't source this book because the only place to find the full text is on a site I created. Can you please allow the text from the book stay on the Marrar page, even without the links.

Baldmurph adding links to your own website is a clear conflict of interest. Rather than directly editing the article, what you should do is make suggestions on the talk page, which is most simply done using the Template:Request edit, allowing other editors to review and make any appropriate changes. Thank you Melcous (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes to Backpage entry

Hi Melcous, I'm interested in your recent revert of text originally added to put into context text added by another user about a previous editor of Village Voice, Tony Ortega.

The other user originally deleted part, but not all of the text you reverted. Ortega defended Backpage, but he is only one of many who did so at the time. Village Voice Media owned up to 17 publications, each with its own editor, and each defended Backpage in one way or another. Ortega likely got a lot of attention because the Village Voice, being in the cultural center of Manhattan, was more prominent. And he became controversial because of his writings on different subjects.

Be that as it may, I took no action to revert the other contributor's text, because arguably it's part of the Backpage history. But that user did hit upon an important point -- that there was a debate over Backpage and sex trafficking in which sex trafficking was often conflated with misdemeanor prostitution by those opposed to Backpage.

Perhaps I did not make this clear enough in the text you reverted, but there is a link here and it is an important one, I think. Backpage became accused of facilitating prostitution, though others alleged sex trafficking, which is a different thing by law in the U.S., the latter being a far more serious offense. There are big debates on this subject between the pro-sex worker community and those who wish to abolish all prostitution, and Backpage's practices are part of that debate.

Another issue: You state "verging on WP:OR" but I have many citations to the text, so I'm a bit confused. (Forgive this, I'm a new editor.) I believe that the conflation of sex trafficking and sex work/prostitution by some is an objective fact, which has been written about at length heretofore. I would be happy to provide more sources to this, if need be :) WP:AGF

I would love to hear further from you on this point, to learn from your experience and to reach agreement and consensus. Thanks in advance for your time. Celine1776 (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Celine1776 and thanks for reaching out. The first thing I would note is that the content I removed consisted of four paragraphs, none of which even mentioned the subject of the article (Backpage). That in itself is a pretty good indication that the content doesn't belong in this article. You may well be correct in your belief that sex trafficking and sex work have been conflated, and that may well be good content to include in an article about sex trafficking and/or sex work. But it is original research to use that kind of information in this article to imply that that has been part of the issue/debate regarding Backpage without sources that actually say that - i.e. that explicitly link that conflation issue to the discussion of Backpage, Ortega etc. If you read the page on original research, it clearly says it "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." None of the sources you cited (nor even the content you included in the article) appeared to made that conclusion. I hope that makes sense. Please ask if not. Melcous (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Melcous, Thanks so much for your quick reply. I would like to make the argument that this conflation is, indeed, part of the debate over Backpage.com. Former execs of that company currently are charged with facilitating prostitution across state lines. The conflation of prostitution and sex trafficking is part of the case. It's likely my fault as a poor writer that I have not made a strong enough argument. My apologies. Here are just a few online sources regarding Backpage and conflation. I can give you others.

Extended content

See this recent article in the Arizona Republic about the trial: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2021/09/08/backpage-court-case-attorney-never-knowingly-posted-prostitution-ads/5775333001/ "An attorney for one of the co-founders of the Backpage said Wednesday that despite the U.S. government’s effort to paint the website as complicit in child trafficking and prostitution, the website worked to stop any illegal activity and was routinely praised by law enforcement for doing so." Further on: "Beinert asked jurors to not take the emotional bait dangled by prosecutors, who he said will constantly try to link the defendants to child sex trafficking. 'This whole trafficking thing is to inflame you on something that just doesn’t exist,' he said. 'Backpage (was) helping solve the problem.'" From Mike Masnick, editor of the influential tech news site, TechDirt on the indictment of former Backpage owners/enployees: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180409/18423839598/federal-backpage-indictment-shows-sesta-unnecessary-contains-zero-sex-trafficking-charges.shtml "The indictment [PDF] behind the DOJ site seizures has finally been made public. It contains a wealth of details about Backpage's adult ads business and a plethora of charges (93) levelled at seven Backpage principals, including founders Michael Lacey and James Larkin.What you won't find amongst the charges is anything about sex trafficking. Lacey is charged with 79 felonies, which include money laundering (which occurred after credit card companies were pressured into refusing to process Backpage ad payments), conspiracy, and 50 counts of Travel Act violations. Because Backpage processed adult ads for sex traffickers all over the nation, prosecutors are able to bring federal charges for state-level "facilitating prostitution" violations against Backpage execs under the theory these electronic transactions "crossed" state lines. So, for all the handwringing about sex trafficking and "untouchable" tech execs, the DOJ has nailed a handful of execs and foregone any concerns about their apparent role in sex trafficking. What the indictment shows is Backpage allegedly facilitated a whole lot of consensual sex between paying customers and sex workers. The indictment also inadvertently shows how Backpage made things safer for sex workers." Masnick has written several articles discussing this issue. DC-based Reason magazine has written about this conflation in respect to Backpage. Such as, here, in this intro to a documentary about Backpage: https://reason.com/video/2019/06/26/war-on-backpage-com-is-a-war-on-sex-workers/ "Lacey and Larkin were able to fend off legal challenges thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which said that website platforms aren't responsible for third party content. As sex work became conflated with sex trafficking, that defense was eroded." Sex worker and writer Maggie McNeil wrote about this conflation for Reason on the part of law enforcement, specifically in regard to Backpage, here: https://reason.com/2015/07/02/visa-mastercard-refuse-backpage-payments/ "As you can see, Dart makes little distinction between "sex trafficking"—generally understood to mean forced or coerced commercial sexual activity—and the much more common phenomenon of consensual prostitution. It's a common conflation, backed by the idea that women are such brainless, innocent creatures we're unable to have sex for reasons other than pleasure or romance; the idea of actually profiting from men's desire to have sex with us would never enter our fluffy, pink little brains. So, even if a woman says she's doing sex work voluntarily, she's either lying or suffering from "Stockholm syndrome," and has actually been coerced by a 'pimp.'" From the ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_sex_work_decrim_research_brief.pdf "At the federal level, recent legislation — driven in part by the inaccurate conflation of human trafficking with consensual sex work — has focused on limiting access to certain online avenues for buying and selling sex-related activity. Specifically, in 2018, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) and the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), collectively referred to as “SESTA/FOSTA,” were signed into law with bipartisan support.5 These laws ostensibly intended to curb human trafficking by making websites liable for postings that appear to advertise sex trafficking or even consensual prostitution, subjecting websites hosting sex-related illegal activity to harsher punishments than websites hosting content related to other forms of illegal activity. These laws appear to have resulted in a drastic reduction in access to online venues. For example, Backpage, a website long known to advertise sex work, was shut down following the passage of these laws." I understand what you're saying about original research, and I very much appreciate your guidance. I'm so impressed with your experience as a Wikipedian, which is enviable in the extreme. I am tempted to give up considering the level of your expertise. But I hope you will indulge my sincere and humble attempt at debate with someone so accomplished as an editor.

What if I were to attempt to rewrite these paragraphs, adding citations that go directly to the point of conflation in regard to Backpage? I would make a good faith effort to show that the link exits and that it is the subject of discourse surrounding Backpage. If I did this, would you be willing to review it and give me your opinion? Please let me know. And thank you again for your kindness and the benefit of your wisdom. Sincerely, Celine1776 (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Celine1776 - this is not the place for this. I would suggest that you propose what you think should be added to the article (with links to the relevant sources) on the article's talk page and let the discussion happen with all interested editors there. But I would caution again, that it is not up to you to "make the argument" - you need sources that do that. Our role here as editors at wikipedia is not to put forth our own arguments or opinions, but to carefully and neutrally summarise what the reliable sources say about a topic. Melcous (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Melcous, With greatest respect, allow me to explain: the "argument" was not in the Backpage entry, it was on this page, and an attempt to reveal an objective fact, not an opinion, that there are numerous sources discussing the conflation of sex work and sex trafficking in relation to Backpage. I will consider your proposal. Celine1776 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Melcous,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Clerical styles in info boxes

Can you please stop removing clerical styles from the info boxes of clergy articles. It is not contrary to the MOS to include them there and is actually the standard custom for info boxes in clergy articles. But you are correct in removing them from opening sentences and also removing academic suffixes both there and in info boxes. Thank you, Anglicanus (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and noted Anglicanus, I have been going by the general WP:MOS, so if you can point me to the specific guidelines/standards for clergy articles that would be really helpful thanks. Melcous (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Melcous. There is a section on clerical titles but I don't remember if it specifically mentions their use in info boxes. I will try to find it for you. But there is an established info box format for clergy which includes their clerical style at the top. Like most other styles and titles they shouldn't be used in opening sentences according to the MOS. Thanks for removing academic titles and suffixes from articles. They can be a real nuisance, especially the suffixes. Anglicanus (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Ranken (moderator)

I agree wholly with the above by the way.. but this comment relates to the rather odd claim of "original research" on the above. I think I have explained where each paragraph is sourced.. What more do you seek? The sources tend to be both standard and repeated but are wholly legitimate, the main source for all Scots clergy being Hew Scott's opus--Stephencdickson (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Stephencdickson, thank you for your comment about agreeing with the above, it will be really helpful if you stop including honorific titles and academic suffixes in the text of articles. The question about original research on the Ranken article relates to (a) comments in the article like "he was presumably ... he was certainly" ... "This was criticised ... this was perhaps unfair" which read as editorial commentary; and also potentially to (b) statements like "He died at home at 106 (Upper) Montrose Street)" sourced to a post office directory, which one might expect to list people's addresses but not their death dates/details. Note the opening paragraph of WP:OR which says it includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Melcous (talk)

A small present for you

Don't if you noticed, but I have been illustrating a few of your articles. There are a few "regular" names I notice when working on User:GRuban/Jess Wade Images, and you're one of them. I noticed she was less than happy with one! But you're also doing good work. Where she writes bios of female and minority scientists, you focus on ... female political and religious leaders? And you list them on your user page, which is very nice. Anyway, I was able to illustrate some of the articles you list from 2019-2021 on your page. Some of the images are better than others, admittedly; it's not trivial to find free images. Still, hope you like!

• 
  Aisha Mohammed Mussa
• 
  Roya Rahmani
• 
  International Association of Women Judges
• 
  Baktygul Jeenbaeva
• 
  Vera Daves
• 
  Anila Denaj
• 
  Nicola Spurrier
• 
  Wil Gafney
• 
  Elizabeth Mburu

--GRuban (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GRuban, that's fantastic. Images is definitely not an area of wikipedia I'm au fait with and as you say, finding ones that can be used is not trivial - your work is appreciated and they look great! Yes I've tended to focus on women political leaders from non-western countries, but have more recently been inspired by the Wikipedia:WikiProject 1000 Women in Religion as well. And yes, the other side of my editing here is more "gnoming" edits tidying up style and tagging, which doesn't always bring joy to creators of content I'm happy for others to do the same to my articles though - I'm sure there are things I regularly miss ... images being one of them!! Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, my article on Bom Hyon Sunim has been tagged for deletion. I was hoping you could have a look at it becuase I don't think the assessment that the sources are too close to her are accurate. Thanks--DrMushEa (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi DrMushEa, I've had a quick look and none of the current sources look to be independent from the subject which is a problem - it does need better sourcing. A quick google search finds this listing on the government's website; this which is a fairly brief mention but completely independent; this which is a passing mention but independent; and this journal publication which might add weight to academic notability and also gives another name under which to potentially do some searching? You might want to see if you can integrate any of those into the article. I would also personally suggest trimming the article to remove things that are only sourced to her own words and possibly trivial - e.g. speaking engagements, favourite music etc. Hope that's helpful. Melcous (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

DrMushEa, I think perhaps you meant to comment here rather than on the AfD page itself? You need to let the AfD discussion run its course, but certainly you should participate and make the case why you think notability criteria has been met! Melcous (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

External Links

Hello. Found this page for understanding what I saw when I was there. On this page you have a link to photo gallery but it page doesn't exist anymore. I have a good quality photos from there and tryed to share it for everyone. But if you don't need it that's ok. Leo-Trips (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard Scolyer Page

Please do not revert changes on the Richard Scolyer Page as the owner does not want the infobox on the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.35.156 (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Responded on IP user's talk page. See WP:OWN, WP:COI, and WP:BIOSELF. Thank you Melcous (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Scolyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Launceston.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE THIS IS NOT DISRUPTIVE EDITING! IT IS PURELY CONSTRUCTIVE AND YOU BLOCKING ME WOULD BE DISRUPTIVE! MAY I SUGGEST WE WORK TOGETHER IN CASE THEIR ARE THINGS THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN I! BUT I AM TRYING MY BEST TO FOLLOW THE RULES! THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6A30:31B0:1CB2:A9F1:F825:6A31 (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I trust that I have done everything I need to for now. You have aa ton of sources so please revise the article or I can do it, but then don't jump down my throat! Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6A30:31B0:1CB2:A9F1:F825:6A31 (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Review assistance

Hello sir, could you review Okofrobou Yaw Agyei II for me? Boadu Emma (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Ross Ulbricht article

Hello Melcous,

I see you live in Australia! How are things down under? I actually have family that live in Tasmania and run a vineyard there, in addition to renting out one cottage of theirs as an airbnb. Anyway, I see you reverted my edit that I felt I had spent some time providing a detailed edit summary of, and did not provide a reason.

I tried to screenshot the two different "sites" in question that were in question by user named "Pincrete". One was FreeRoss.org and the other was the change dot org "petition site", I believe if you check the talk page for "Ross Ulbricht", you will find a discussion ongoing about aspects of the petition site. In particular about how some editors feel that there should be information about the petition (myself included, since it would appear to me to be an important part of the biographical story, just as there is mention of the change dot org petition on George Floyd's personal article page as well, which again, in the interest of full disclosure, I have played a hand in editing) and other editors feel that there should NOT be any mention of the petition site.

Regardless of that particular discussion, I am confused as to why the "FreeRoss.org" website would be removed from the "Website" portion of the InfoBox for Ulbricht. Would you please undo that last edit? Would be much appreciated! G'day! Th78blue (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Th78blue. As was pointed out by Pincrete, this is not the function of the infobox. The website parameter of a biographical infobox is only for the individual's official website if one exists. As the "about" section of the freeross website says it is "a group of family, friends and supporters working to free Ross", which is not at all the same thing - it is a website about the individual with a clear agenda. Whether there are reliable sources that mention that website that can be utilised to write a neutral section in the article itself about the petition and its goals (as there is in the George Floyd article) is a valid question and a good discussion to have on the talk page, but again a separate issue from including such a link in the infobox. Melcous (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Chipokota Mwanawasa

Dear Melcous,

You left me a message that I should not "add or change content, as you did at Chipokota Mwanawasa, without citing a reliable source."

Please note that the changes made were factual and based on the original sources at the beginning of the article. However some edited some of them without explaining for example why the deleted the second master degree the subject has and which is referenced already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwanaapeluke (talk • contribs) 05:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Melcous

You keep editing down the page to nothing but the name of the film because you believe it's promoting this actor. Listing the other individuals in the films is part of the description of the film. They are all back by references. I've had other editors agree this shouldn't be an issue. You do not EDIT any other actors' biographies. Who stars in the film is a big part of the film, Johnathon's had numerous companies contact him about editing this page. He should not have to hire someone to combat your efforts.

Johnathon has a learning disability and this is very hard for him to do --- We are trying to do everything correctly.

You keep focusing the page on what you believe to be true. Johnathon Schaech is a well-known actor, not just one thing like you suggest. It's been over eight years of this combat over this page. It's hurt Johnathon's profession, his ability to do his job.

Thank you. You are harming this individual and you'll be reported.

John Schaech's team

example

This actor uses both fellows actors and directors of note to inform the project. Melocous is malicious in narrowing down the material to its title. It's quite clear that you have malicious intent. Others won't touch this page.

After appearing in an episode of Law & Order and a commercial for Crest toothpaste in 1993, Scott's first notable role was in the recurring role of Matthew for several seasons on the television situation comedy Grace Under Fire. He played the title character's illegitimate son, whom she had placed for adoption. In 1996, Scott landed the role of Guy Patterson in the film That Thing You Do! He was almost passed over because of his resemblance to the film's director, actor Tom Hanks, but Hanks's wife, Rita Wilson, encouraged Hanks to cast look-alike Scott in the role.[8]

Scott has had several other notable roles; he was the lead in the films An American Werewolf in Paris and Dead Man on Campus, and co-starred with Kate Capshaw and Tom Selleck in The Love Letter. He starred in the cult film Boiler Room and made an uncredited cameo in Van Wilder. While Scott did not realize his initial success and become a leading man, he has had recurring roles on the television series ER in 2002 and 2003 and has played numerous minor parts in other films and television shows such as Will & Grace and Sons of Anarchy. He co starred in the series Philly as a lawyer, partnering with Kim Delaney. The show was a critical success but suffered poor ratings and was cancelled after one season. He also starred in Saved, a medical drama series on TNT. He starred in the TV movie Surrender Dorothy. He appeared as one of Mandy Moore's character's boyfriends in the comedy Because I Said So,[9] and starred in a Broadway theatre comedy, The Little Dog Laughed, as closeted film star Mitchell Green, written by Douglas Carter Beane. He also appeared as Zip in an Off Broadway production of The Country Club, also written by Beane.[citation needed] He starred as Jack Cutting on the ABC's brief comedy drama series Cashmere Mafia (2008). In 2009, he appeared in four episodes of Law & Order playing the fictional Governor of New York, Don Shalvoy. He also played Detective Russell Clarke in the seven episodes of the first season of Southland, which was dropped by NBC and subsequently picked up by TNT. At the start of second season, he became a recurring character appearing in three of six episodes. In the third and fifth season of the series, he continued to appear in selected episodes.

Scott had supporting roles in other films such as Race to Witch Mountain, Tanner Hall, Mars Needs Moms, Parental Guidance, Enemies Closer, Sister Cities, and made something of a big-screen leading man comeback with his portrayal of an affable but amoral paramedic in Danger One. His former television roles include Sam Landon in Beauty and the Beast, Kevin Duval in Scream, Charles Garnett in Z Nation, and William in Reign. In 2016, he appeared in the film La La Land, in which he was cast by director Damien Chazelle. In 2017, he co-starred in the film Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul, and is a series regular on the TruTV sitcom I'm Sorry, starring alongside Andrea Savage.[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Schaech (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

John Schaech As the message on your talk page says, (and as your opening line here suggests as well) you appear to have a clear conflict of interest with the article Johnathon Schaech, which means you should not be editing it directly. You can instead request edits on the talk page. You should also note that all content on wikipedia should be written in a neutral way and wording calling yourself "most handsome" and saying you "exploded onto the scene" is not acceptable not matter who it is added by. Melcous (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Johnathon Schaech

Melcous,

After reading about Johnathon Schaech's social media posts about you and your unfair edits, I did some investigating. I find this very disturbing. I see you've done some beautiful pages. However, the notes on the edits on Johnathon's page are right in line with your writing. How is that?

example:

Amy Butcher is an American writer and essayist. Her memoir, Visiting Hours: A Memoir of Friendship and Murder, was published in 2015. Her second book, Mothertrucker, is forthcoming from Amazon Publishing literary press Little A Books in 2022.[1] In August 2019, Makeready Films announced a film adaptation of Mothertrucker will be

produced and directed by Jill Soloway and will star Julianne Moore.[2] 

How is it name-dropping when Johnathon's costars and directors are listed but not when it comes to one of your pages? Every actor lists their costars on every page. The same goes for all of your other edits? There seems to be a personal issue with Johnathon and you.

Thank You, Trace — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldNatchezTrace (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

OldNatchezTrace you appear to have misunderstood the issue, which is primarily about wikipedia's conflict of interest policy = articles do not belong to the people they are about, nor do they exist to list information by them. I have no personal connection, issue, or interest in Mr. Schaech, I have simply been trying to abide by wikipedia's core guidelines (and along with others, explain them to him and his supporters). If you have come here to edit because he has been posting on social media asking people to, you might like to read WP:MEAT. Note, I have also reverted your edit on Amy Butcher - retaliatory editing is not ok. Thank you Melcous (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Melcous,

I don't misunderstand the issue. I do see you've edited numerous individuals within a certain industry. Wikipedia's core guidelines conflict of interest state that editors shouldn't receive compensation for their work. Why is it that you write such eloquent and beautiful pages with individuals that know one another or work in the same genre? It's disturbing to read these incredible pages you've written and then witness your comments on other editors not within your arena.

You stated in your notes the cause of your edits was the other editor was "Name dropping", but you do the same thing in a lot of your edits. It's not name-dropping when you're identifying the piece of work, whether it be an award or project. Every arena states the other artists associated with that particular project.

I made the edits that you pointed out, particularly name dropping, it's not in retaliation. It's to make a point. So that you'd address what is "name dropping."

Amy Butcher has a project with an actor and a director. You list the names. But others can't list the writers, directors, or other actors in those finished works?

Explain, please. I'm learning. You seem to want to put everyone in editing prison so it doesn't interfere with your work. User:Old Natchez Trace 4, November 2021

OldNatchezTrace just to clarify, the paid editing policy is about editors receiving compensation for their editing here. The Conflict of interest policy is broader and pertains to people editing about people and organisations they know and have connections with. Melcous (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Arjun Wikipedia Profile - November 2021

Hi Melcous,

Thank you for taking the time earlier to review the edits I'd made on Arjun's profile page. I didn't mean to incorrectly remove the error messages at the top. I have been working to get the page to a state where we feel everything is correct, properly sourced and not written like an advertisement. I removed the error messages after I felt like this was done. I realised that I didn't properly explain what the edits were when I saved the document so I added what the edits were to the talk page. Here is the note I made regarding removing the errors:

4. Removed errors at the top of the page stating that some text may not be correctly referenced (this has been resolved) and that some text may appear to be written like an advertisement (this has been resolved).

Please do let me know if this doesn't resolve the issue. If so, I would love some feedback on how (specifically) we could improve the article and eventually get these errors taken down.

I hope that you're well and having a nice week!

All the best, Will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willteamarjun (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Willteamarjun, I see you have been blocked for undisclosed conflict of interest editing, so will leave this alone for now. Melcous (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

don’t remove content of Krist Perawat Sangpotirat.

Please don’t remove content of Krist Perawat Sangpotirat. Thanks! I need more detail information of him like other artists. Sheilalee2009 (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sheilalee2009, like all content on wikipedia, information in that article must be referenced to reliable, independent secondary sources, and written neutrally and not promotionally. The content that has been removed did not meet those guidelines. Please do not add content that does not meet the core guidelines of the encyclopedia. Thank you ````

You should see more other artist’s wikipedia, some information didn’t need to reference sources. I don’t think all content I added protionally ? Some artist’s wikipedia has similar content. Sheilalee2009 (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry

I've been following the Johnathon Schaech saga at WP:COIN as well as some of the reprehensible Twitter posts that have been made at your expense. Wikipedia editors should not get this kind of treatment for trying to keep content in line with policy. I'm sorry you've had to endure this kind of abuse... it's unfair and undeserved. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Drm310, I really appreciate that. It has not been very pleasant, and unfortunately it doesn't seem to be over yet - I took a step back to try to reflect, then made some edits today that I hoped would take the heat out of things, but those seem to have been misunderstood and only inflamed him. It's really encouraging to know that others here are paying attention and understanding. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your meticulous work on many articles, and for keeping your cool after being unjustly attacked. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 16:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTOBIT

I linked a user to the edit you made here, in which you used WP:NOTOBIT as your edit summary. I went along with it, but another user made a good point to me today that that link just redirects to WP:MEMORIAL, which doesn't appear to say anything about tributes in articles. Maybe you can shed some light? Seasider53 (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Seasider53, yes that's probably an unhelpful shorthand edit summary - I think I remembered that link as saying more than it does (or more likely, was thinking of a different link but I can't quickly find it). Perhaps a better explanation would be a combination of WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK and MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, but essentially, particularly in such a short article, having a block quote that is the kind of thing that would be written in an obituary or tribute (and without any other context) is not neutral or encyclopedic. Thanks for the message though, I won't use that shorthand explanation again and will try to see if I can find the clearer explanation that I was thinking of! Melcous (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Chateau School content

Hello Melcous,

Thank you for working on the Chateau School article. I understand that you are working to clear the advertisement content from the page, but your deletion is also deleting vital information. I would like to consult with you on what will be content can be considered promotion-free. I would like to prevent editwarring with you and to ensure the article meets Wikipedia standards. I also see that other editors met the same problem as well, attempting to post information from articles found online.

UralKazan1985 (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your message UralKazan1985 and thank you for starting a discussion on the article's talk page, which is the best place to discuss proposed inclusion. However, it would also be good if you can explain if you have a connection with the school? Thank you Melcous (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Melcous, thank you for your reply. I am not directly connected with the school. I am writing about the school to provide much information as possible to provide the reasoning of notability as Wikipedia requires. I understand there is a vague line between promotional texts and necessary information. The school noticed my work on the page, and provided some media to add. My edits also included St. Mary's International School in Tokyo as well to add the motto. My goal is to provide the similar content standard as the American School in Japan article. --UralKazan1985 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response UralKazan1985. I must admit I am intrigued as to how a school you have no connection with "provided you" with media to add to the article? It is by far preferable if you do have a connection with them to disclose this and work within the conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you Melcous (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Rev J Gillespie

why have you removed his obituary? 109.144.16.119 (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not know which article you are talking about - you would need to be more specific. But I can say (a) I have not removed any articles - I don't have the authority to do that, it is done by community consensus or by administrators according to the guidelines; and (b) wikipedia articles are not obituaries so if there was that kind of content in a biographical article here it could be removed for that reason. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Detroit Partnership

Hi Melcous, thanks for your edits. The students should be drafting in the sandbox rather than the main space, so I'll remind them to do that. They are getting instruction from me and from others about reliable sources, and I believe they were in the process of adding citations when you reverted their edits. However, I don't agree that the added paragraphs were "essay-like" or un-encyclopedic. Their tone and style seems neutral and clear to me.DrLibraryCat (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you DrLibraryCat that's helpful. Note, no one was in the middle of editing when I reverted, and citations should always be included with the content, which will also help them make sure the content is verifiable and not synthesis or opinion. The kind of language that I would argue is "essay like" includes phrases like "members who found their way across the Atlantic", "power thirst was kept in check", "gunmen leaped out from a back room" and "lack of memory was a common ailment among witnesses" and the over use of opinion-based adjectives like "shaky", "well liked", "loyal" "lucrative", "influential", "treacherous" etc etc (and even more so when these are unsourced). Melcous (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Susana Naidich

¿Quería consultar con que criterio se borraron los alumnos destacados que aparecían en la página? ¿Sabe que, dentro de los que usted elimino, había uno que pertenecía al COMET, la más alta sociedad de fonoaudiología, a la cual, actualmente, solo pertenecen cuatro personas de Argentina? Diegocalp (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Diegocalp, if these people are notable, then please feel free to write an article here about them. Then they can be included in such lists. Melcous (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Melcous,

Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. However, I have a request to make. Please, every time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), please post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. I see that you do this sometimes, but not every time. You're using Twinkle to tag pages, which is great, so please set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator". Before hitting submit on the tagging, make sure that box is checked off.

Also, sometimes Twinkle's default setting is to only notify page creators for certain criteria of speedy deletion, like A7s and G11s, when really page creators need to be notified no matter what the reasons are for a page to be deleted. If you go into Preferences, you can check the boxes for all of the CSD criteria.

Thanks again for your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Liz and thanks for your message. I thought I did have Twinkle set up to automatically notify page creators - I will check the settings and make sure it is on for all of them! Melcous (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Melcous, you still aren't notifying page creators when you tag their pages! It's not hard! Set up your Twinkle Preferences and make sure the "Notify page creator" box is checked. I think I'll undo your taggings until you can get this right. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Liz, I did go and set all my preferences to do this (there was only one unticked at the time) was and it was working fine. I'm not sure why it has stopped today but will look into it. I know it's not hard, the system must be glitchy. And to be honest, it feels a bit rude and condescending to start undoing all my edits (including those where I did notify the creator - here for just one example) while I am currently editing without giving me a chance to address this. Melcous (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Liz or anyone else TPS, my current twinkle preferences are set up to have ALL the CSD criteria ticked for "Notify page creator" and have been since Liz last messaged me about this. So any suggestions appreciated because I'm not sure what else I can do. Melcous (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Hi Melcous, Wish you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thank you for your great work on Wikipedia. Happy Holidays. DMySon (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Adventure Racing!

Dear Melcous,

Why have you reverted the updated information which is accurate and contain valid citations and links?

What is your justification for continuing to revert to inaccurate and unsupported information on these pages, when the history is clearly supported in the media records?

Your persistent revert of World Obstacle to World OCR, for example, is wrong. World OCR does not exist, as you can see on the website and public records.

Thanks for your time,

Ianadamson (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

HI Ianadamson, it is very clear that you have a conflict of interest with these topics, which means you are asked not to directly edit the articles. You should instead propose changes on their talk pages if there is inaccurate or missing information. You can most easily do this using the Template:Request edit. You should also disclose your conflict of interest on your user page. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Melcous, I will review the Request edit link you provided.

COI aside, shouldn't correctly cited, current and accurate information be included on a page that is full of errors and omissions? As an example, the revert of World Obstacle to World OCR, see above.

Do you believe I have a COI in the case of Adventure Racing? I am not involved with these entities and organizations at this time. Ianadamson (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

ONEArmenia

The organization has changed its direction. I simply added a sentence or 2 in the first paragraph. It's fine that you decided to remove the entire section listing projects, but I'm simply updating the intro in my second round of edits, nothing more. The material reads as promotional to begin with, I am not making it more so or less so.

this is what I'd like to add: ONEArmenia is a nonprofit organisation that creates travel experiences related to culture, food, wellness, and adventure in Armenia with the goal of creating sustainable employment opportunities for local people.

You have an issue with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm3801 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Rm3801, the first question would be whether you have a connection with the organization and therefore a conflict of interest in editing the article. Once you have clarified that, the next issue would be to understand wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which makes an edit that adds the kind of wording an organization uses about itself unacceptable here. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Hi you recently left me a message saying not to use "styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles" in reference to some edit, but I am not sure which edit you are referring to. I wrote about someone defending victims of sexual abuse, but I don't think there was anything inappropriate in there. Please let me know. Thank you. RPBAYHaLevi (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi RPBAYHaLevi, I reverted edits on a couple of different articles (e.g. 1 and 2) where you included honorific titles which do not conform to the manual of style, as noted in the edit summaries. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Questions about edits to entry for Eric Metaxas

I am disputing the deletion of edits to the page of author Eric Metaxas. I have made edits twice to his page, and within minutes those edits were reverted back to the original by you, Melcous, and by user Snooganssnoogans.

The truth is Mr. Metaxas IS a New York Times best-selling author of multiple books, which I listed, with citations. He IS NOT only "the author of three biographies," as the entry states previously and after my edits. My question is why are some authors cited as NYT best sellers and others not given that credit?

The Wikipedia entry of best-selling author Ibram X. Kendi, https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ibram_X._Kendi, states: "A New York Times #1 Best Seller in 2020, How to Be an Antiracist is Kendi's most popular work thus far.[23] Professor Jeffrey C. Stewart called it the "most courageous book to date on the problem of race in the Western mind".[24]

Why is Eric Metaxas not given the same credit as a NYT best seller?

In your comments you stated the edits were "promotional" and Snooganssnoogans wrote "poorly sourced puffery." Yet similar content that is posted on Kendi's page is not censored. Why?

Further, Wikipedia uses the label "conservative" to describe Mr. Metaxas's talk show. Mr. Metaxas has a radio program; it is not a "conservative" radio program. Why label him "conservative"? Isn't that a subjective opinion rather than a fact, used to discredit the author?

Wikipedia does not label Nikole Hannah-Jones as a "progressive" or "liberal" journalist and author: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Nikole_Hannah-Jones: Nikole Sheri Hannah-Jones (born April 9, 1976)[1][2] is an American investigative journalist, known for her coverage of civil rights in the United States. In April 2015, she became a staff writer for The New York Times. In 2017 she was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship and in 2020 she won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for her work on The 1619 Project.

Wikipedia's entry about Jones is very promotional.

Elsewhere, the original Metaxas entry included only the negative aspects of a review written by a distinguished historian, yet that same review boasted plenty of positive material, which I included but has since been deleted.

Both entries for Kendi and Jones are highly complementary.

How do Wikipedia editors justify these changes and inclusion of certain content for one individual and not another? Do you promote one author but not another? And isn't that censorship?

Alwaysgrateful (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)AlwaysGratefulAlwaysgrateful (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Alwaysgrateful the place to talk about this is on the article's talk page, to seek consensus with other editors. I would note however that what is on other wikipedia pages is not relevant (see WP:OSE) although I'm happy to look and make changes if they do not meet wikipedia's guidelines. The key guidelines you should read include WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:PROMO. Melcous (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Images on RepresentUs

Just to explain that the Josh Silver image will probably be deleted which is why I moved it; I'm not trying to destroy the RepresentUs page unlike another editor, I'm trying to fix it. At present, Jennifer Lawrence has no images when she's an active board member; shouldn't she belong there?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer, I said that I found your other comment about me extremely rude. Now I see that you have said here that I am trying to "destroy" the RepresentUs page by pointing out that the pictures you added were not helpful to readers. Although most have been very pleasant and helpful, I have been treated quite rudely by admins and other users since creating my account on Wikipedia. I guess this considered acceptable behavior but I do not appreciate these types of comments and I am asking you to please try to be more polite. Thank you. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer and Polycarpa aurata the place for this discussion is on the article's talk page. I have left a comment on this there. Please do try to keep the focus on the issue and not on other editors behaviour. Thanks Melcous (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Revert of anonymous edit in André Lichnerowicz

Hi Melcous, a few days ago you reverted an edit by an anonymous user in the page André Lichnerowicz. I completely agree with what you did, but after such user complained in the talk page, and I explained that his/her edit should be properly sourced, he/she called us "pack of watchdogs", hinted that "nobody is interested in math", that Wikipedia is becoming useless, etc.

I am not experienced with such kind of discussions (actually it's the first time), so I hoped that you could suggest me how to proceed; just the standard "don't feed the troll", or should I/we try to answer to that user again, link something, etc.? Thanks! Francesco Cattafi (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Francesco Cattafi, I think your explanation was good and I have just added a comment there affirming my explanation for why I made the revert. But yes I'd agree after giving a clear explanation, there is not much point responding to those kinds of broad criticisms of wikipedia as whole, which really don't add anything constructive to the issue at hand, particularly with an IP editor who you cannot directly tag. Happy editing! Melcous (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Two new articles that may interest you

Hi, I created 2 new articles 8 days ago for Yitzchok Lichtenstein and Esti Rosenberg, but it seems nobody is coming to approve/review them. At least, the other articles I had created seemed to be noticed much earlier and improved/approved by other editors. I figured I would take the advice of the Help:Drawing attention to new pages Wikipedia page and reach out to another editor who might have an interest in helping to build the new pages. Thanks and looking forward to being in touch. IshChasidecha (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I will have a look, but also note they do not need "approval" as you have created them in the main space not as drafts. Thanks Melcous (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Not affiliated with any institution

Hello Melcous, thank you for your message. I'm not being paid to write this article and I'm not affiliated with any institution. I'm writing the article based on his official bio and I'm using that information to populate his Wikipedia page. I did make a mistake with a reference that I will remove now. Thank you. Mandrod (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Honorifics

You need to buy a dictionary. You do not understand the difference between honorary, honorific and earned titles.

In your recent edit to Colonel Anne Mackintosh you have moved the title from a unique person, the ONLY Col Anne Mackintosh (and that is how all histories name her) to an unspecific Anne Mackintosh, a name associatec with at least 50,000 individuals. The title met all Wikipedia guidelines. By your odd definition of honorific surely you should delete all Sirs, Lords and Barons as these are certainly honours bestowed by the Crown. Honorific refers to how someone is addressed not their qualifications or rank.--Stephencdickson (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Stephencdickson I would ask you once again to try to refrain from insulting people, or in more common wikipedia language, comment on content not the contributor. The issue has nothing to do with my understanding of anything, but rather with wikipedia's naming conventions. My use of the word "honorific" was simply shorthand - it applies to titles, styles, ranks etc. See WP:NCP. If by some miracle all these other 50,000 Anne Mackintoshes are notable enough for wikipedia articles, the conventions include a way of doing that - disambiguating. Melcous (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Lynn H Cohick page

Melcous - thank you for your note. Here are the changes I made (my apologies for not subscribing to COI stated guidelines; here are the changes for your and others' review):

Changed the second paragraph to read: Cohick taught New Testament at Wheaton College from 2000-2018,[1] sequentially serving as Vice-Chair of the Faulty, chairing the Bible and Theology Department,[4] and serving as interim dean of Humanities and Theological Studies, in her three last years at Wheaton College.[5] footnote 4 was kept, although it is inaccurate; footnote 5 (already in page) was added to this sentence.Jaclhc (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Reason: the previous sentence stated Cohick was the Chair of Wheaton Center for Early Christian Studies is inaccurate, cited in the link.

Added additional sentence to third paragraph with citation: The DMin degree program "Women in Theology and Leadership" at Northern Seminary will commence in 2022.[8] footnote 8: "Northern Seminary | Doctor of Ministry". Northern Seminary. Retrieved 2022-02-20.

Added additional sentence to fourth paragraph with citation: In 2020, Cohick accepted the invitation to serve on the Board of Trustees of Biola University, located in La Mirada, CA.[11] footnote 11: "Lynn Cohick | People, Biola University". www.biola.edu. Retrieved 2022-02-20.

Jaclhc (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jaclhc. This should go on the article's talk page rather than here, so I have taken the liberty of copying what you have written there. I will have a look and see, thanks. Melcous (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Mohamed Douch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mohamed Douch, 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/Mohamed Douch 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, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Reverts

Thank you for trying to ensure Wikipedia is a sourced and credible encyclopedia. However, please do not revert complete edits without consideration. You reverted edits that should not have been reverted. Thank you.

I'd also like to ask you do not revert edits if you do not have knowledge on that topic. You reverted an edit of Cory Bernadi stating "Cited source doesn't say he was National Right". The National Right is the Right-Wing faction of the Liberal Party.

James1221911, the onus is on you when adding content to ensure that it is properly sourced, and if it is not anyone can and should revert your edits. Please also note that websites with user generated content are not acceptable. Please also check your facts before you make judgments as to what I or any other editors have knowledge of - I did not edit the Cory Bernardi article at all. And finally, please sign your posts on talk pages. Melcous (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know." Clearly did not do the right thing. So I am letting you know. -- JamesJ (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

James1221911 Well, I'm not sure you can say "clearly did not do the right thing" when you have pointed out a revert that was made by someone else, not me, as well as edits that I (and other editors) do not consider mistakes but rather what should happen when unsourced content is added, but okay. Melcous (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21