User talk:Melcous/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For doing the heavy lifting required to clean out the PROMO and source that ancient BLP. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Chloe Shorten

Hey what's your issue? No need to be arrogantly placing a notice on my talk page! Sportstir (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sportstir Nothing arrogant about it, it's a standard warning template used to advise new editors of key guidelines here that they may be unaware of if they have not followed them. Please assume good faith. Melcous (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Style

I noticed you have been editing Jason Fader. Thanks for your shared interest in making wikipedia a better source of information.

Some of your edits seem to be based on your personal style which not everyone would follow. That is not why I am posting on your talk. I have a different style but I would not call your style a "mistake". Your style is yours.

I did notice, however, a comment from you that reads: "please read previous edit summaries and take the time to ensure you do not keep making the same mistakes"

As sportstir pointed out, sometimes your tone does not demonstrate respect for other users and does not seem to reflect an assumption of good faith for other users. I have included the link to assuming good faith again even though you cited it before. Please understand that because someone writes differently, they are not making a mistake. Even if they are making a mistake, they could be a new user who needs coaching not degrading. Please assume that they are writing in good faith and you just have a different perspective, level of experience, or writing style.

Please consider how you might judge others with an open mind and helpful tone as you consider your edits and their comments.

Again, thank you for your time and enthusiasm in editing articles.Breamk (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Breamk thanks for your message. I'm not exactly sure what tone you are referring to, as the message from the above editor and the Jason Fader article are quite different things, the former being in reference to a standard template so there was actually no 'tone' of my own in that. I apologise if it was unclear, but in the edit summary you refer to I linked to WP:SURNAME, so the issue wasn't one of personal preference or style but was an attempt to point the editor again to the WP:MOS, but I'm sure I could have made that clearer. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Preity Zinta Image

Hi Melcous,

We've taken permission from permission (permissions@wikimedia.org) and it's clearly mentioned that we can use. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psheela (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Psheela I'm sorry, I don't know anything about the issues with wikimedia. I reverted your edit because it didn't link to an actual picture file just a red link which isn't helpful for readers. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Maintenance Template

Melcous, I updated a page that had incorrect information and removed the "maintenance template" to the page. It listed the person as the author of a book and it was incorrect. Badalola (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)badalola

Hi Badalola, yes the changes you made within the article are still there, I just reverted your removal of the templates about notability and conflict of interest editing because you did not explain why you think those issues have been resolved and the changes you made did not specifically address those two things. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

ok makes sense. The page template set up is a little odd considering how much information is added to it. Would condensing the information be a solution? Badalola (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

Dear Melcous: I am sorry that my recent edits lacked neutrality. I am not a zealot. I was merely attempting to add references to a text that had been criticized for lacking them. I will try again. Best, --Bobskol854 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobskol854 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bobskol854 and thanks for your message. No worries, I think we are getting there - I have tried to make comments in my edit summaries explaining why I have made the changes I have, the key thing is to let the facts speak for themselves rather than needing to include adjectives like "highly successful" or "major" - in an encyclopedia these often end up looking promotional. It would be great if you could use the edit summary feature too when you make changes so that you can explain why you are doing what you are. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

MTM

Hi I edited the content so that it is not promotional, you ask for relevant references and I provided news articles/books/government papers among others so at this point I feel like you flagged the page without making sure that the content is unbiased. I also already tried to disclose the conflict of interest possibility both on my user and talk page yesterday and my previous account got blocked without even giving me the possibility of proposing changes through requesting edit as you suggested.

Honestly it is very discouraging and I don't know what you expect from me as I feel like I'm gonna get blocked AGAIN if I try to do anything else. There is clearly no conflict of interest and if you were to read the content you would see that. Would you like me to just delete the published works section since it is the only one that could come close to promotion? Sara94500 (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sara94500 thanks for your message. Your previous account was blocked because it was against the username policy, as the notice on the talk page says. So creating a new account for you personally was the right thing to do. However, there are still a couple of important steps to abiding by the conflict of interest policy. Note - this is not about the content added to the article, it is about your relationship to the subject of the article. You need to disclose this on your (new) user page, see here on how to do so. Note that if you are editing this article as part of your job or receiving compensation in any other way, you must make a specific 'paid' declaration before you do anything else.
Once you have made the appropriate disclosures, the next step is to suggest changes you would like to see to the article on its talk page, providing reliable, independent sources to verify them. It is easier if you can do this one key idea, or one section, at a time, rather than making huge changes to the whole article as you have previously done - this is much more likely to get reverted because there is no way to separate out what is helpful from what is not. The easiest thing to do is use the Template:Request edit.
I know this can seem onerous, but while wikipedia can be edited by anyone, there are some key guidelines to help ensure that this is done in a neutral way, so for those who have a personal connection to a subject they want to write about here, that means disclosure and review. If you have more questions as you do this, just ask. Melcous (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Chase Atlantic

Hi there, I am happy for you to make any language or style changes to the updated page. Please do not return the page to the former edit as there are many factual inaccuracies. Thank you for your time!

Re endorsements

Hi. I noticed you deleted the endorsements info on the page of Jolina Magdangal citing it is not encyclopaedic material. But i've been seeing a lot of pages that contains the same materials.

See Judy Ann Santos#Other activities#Products and endorsements. Also Regine Velasquez#Other activities#Product endorsements

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsingko (talk • contribs) 04:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:USE - just because it is used on one article does not make it okay. The sources used for many (such as facebook) are also not acceptable, see WP:UGC. Melcous (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Rowan Holmes-Smith

Hi there, I appreciate your input and suggestions to add more sources and references. I had already disclosed the COI on my user page per Wikipedias guidelines, I've updated this again in case it was incorrect the first time. I am not being paid to write this article. I am happy for you to fix up language or style changes, But please do not delete large portions of this page again thank you. Your actions are very hostile, particularly for a new user. I've noticed others have the same issues. Perhaps in the future, you could suggest some edits before going about deleting large portions of peoples work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowanhs (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Rowanhs, as you have a conflict of interest, you need to use the articles for creation process and submit the article for review by other editors rather than moving it into the article space yourself. The changes I made were in accordance with wikipedia policy and the content I removed is the kind of content that will result in the article not being accepted. All content must be verified by reference to reliable, independent, secondary sources. Content should be written neutrally and it needs to be focused on the topic of the article, so large sections about other topics as you currently have in the draft are not acceptable, nor is resume like content like lists of professional associations and career events. Finally, my actions were not hostile, they are exactly how wikipedia works - once an article is in the main space of the encyclopedia, it can and will be edited by anyone at any time; the article is not owned by anyone, including its subject. You should also read this page about why it is in inadvisable to be writing an article about yourself here at all. Melcous (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

My last edits to the Size2Shoes Wikipedia page were very factual and should not have been deleted

I received a message from you about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines when I made two original edits to the Size2Shoes Wikipedia page. I then went back to write new edits that were very factual, and was careful that in no way my new edits should be looked at as conflict of interest, they do not "promote" the band any more than the other information listed about the band in the article! There are many of Size2Shoes achievements listed in the article, just because I want to add some more background information about their achievements does not mean I am making an edit that violates any conflict of interest. For example you deleted my footnotes where I added that they played several times for Steven Spielberg in 2009. There is no reason this type of information should be deleted any more than information that is already in the article, for instance that they appeared in Steven Spielberg's 2011 film War Horse. Why was that information allowed and the what I added not? I also added footnotes of the article linking Mayo News where the information can be found. I also received no second notification from you after my second set of footnotes were also deleted! Please explain to me why the second set of information I added was deleted when it is not more "promotional" than other information already in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InspireEdit (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi InspireEdit, thanks for the message. Firstly, adding a second set of footnotes using the reflist template was incorrect and mucked up the formatting of the article - if reference templates are used correctly then they will all be captured by the existing reflist template at the bottom of the article. In terms of the content you added, simply name dropping what famous people have said about a band is the kind of information that belongs on their own website in order to promote them rather than in an encyclopedia. The source you added does not give any context for the quotes either, which I think is problematic. Melcous (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Melcous, you refer to "name dropping," but that doesn't apply for me adding information that Size2Shoes played several times for Steven Spielberg in 2009. That is no more "name dropping" then the information that is already in the article about them being in his movie War Horse. I am asking you about the second set of edits that you removed, not the first. The first time I had added the quote when Steven Spielberg said "Size2Shoes...fits all!" I am new to Wikipedia but an experienced editor and writer, so I could take your point for not including that quote and deleted it. I then added brand new edits that I stand by that there should not be any issue with the content. I will look into the quotation guidelines, but it did add my footnotes in order with the footnotes that were already in the article. InspireEdit — Preceding unsigned comment added by InspireEdit (talk • contribs) 00:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
InspireEdit, as I said, your second edit added a second reflist template which created problems with the formatting of the whole article. I understand this was a mistake, but fixing this was one of the reasons I gave for reverting in my edit summary. With regards to the content from the Mayo News article, to me that still reads very promotionally and like a press release - the opinions of other well known people are the kinds of things a band would (and should!) say about themselves on their own website to encourage people to listen to them, rather than objectively verifiable facts like their appearance in a movie. Thanks. Also, when you engage on a talk page, whether another editor's like here or the talk page of an article, please "sign" your posts by including four tildes (~ this symbol) at the end. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about UNC Gillings page

Hello,

I'm a communications specialist at the UNC-Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health. Recently, I asked a colleague to make updates to this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNC_Gillings_School_of_Global_Public_Health) because much of the content is outdated, erroneous or incomplete.

I saw today that you undid those changes, citing COI. Could you please help us get oriented to Wikipedia by sharing the guidelines for editing pages so we can try again? If you have specifics about which changes were out of bounds, that would be even more helpful -- I'm not sure what to do differently in the future, because her edits were based on facts, history and posted School value statements. Not trying to be snarky -- just confused!

Thank you so much, Jennie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.170.249 (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jennie, and thanks for your message. As editors with a conflict of interest, you are asked not to edit the article directly, but instead propose changes on its talk page. This is most easily done using the Template:Request edit. A few things to keep in mind when you do so:
  1. All information needs to be verifiable by reference to reliable, published, sources and preferably independent sources, so not the school's own website for example.
  2. All content needs to be written in a way that is neutral and non-promotional, so wording like "The Gillings School is home to about 1,600 diverse, creative and dedicated students" or "the Gillings School has been committed to groundbreaking research, exceptional teaching and dedicated service", which were both added by Kgoracombs, is not acceptable - that kind of wording belongs on your own website, not in an encyclopedia.
  3. Similarly, Mission and Values statements should not be included in encyclopedia articles
  4. External links or links to outside websites should not be used in the body of an article, which is another error made with the edit. This won't be as much of a problem however if you are just suggesting the proposed changes on the talk page, as an independent editor who reviews them for you can use the correct formatting if they add them to the article.
  5. Finally, when requesting edits on the talk page it is much better to make one distinct request at a time rather than trying to 'fix' the whole article in one go. So saying "Please change X to Y because ..." with a provided reference is much more likely to receive a clear answer and be a change that can be quickly made.

Please keep asking here or on the talk page if you have other questions. The pages I have linked to in this reply are all places where you can read more information about the guidelines and policies I am referring to. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Hi there. Responding to your edit on the Teenage Cancer Trust page where my ‘good faith’ contribution was reverted by you. Just wondering what your reasons were for this and perhaps what a contribution that isn’t assumed in good faith would look like. No criticism, just curiosity. Cheers :) Danainlondon (talk)

Hi Danainlondon, and thanks for your message. The edit you made inserted the name of the company that your userpage says pays you. Under the paid editing and conflict of interest guidelines, you are asked not to make such edits directly, but to propose them on the article's talk page and let an independent editor review them first. Because you had made a paid disclosure on your userpage as required, I assumed that as a new editor you were not aware of this, hence the "assume good faith" revert. You will find that paid editing is scrutinised quite closely here. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about Ascension Parish

Hello Melcous,

I have spent numerous making changes to Ascension Parish's wikipage to improve it from the very basics to making it comparable to any large county in the US. I added detailed information on politicians, education, and businesses/economics.

You took probably five edits worth of changes out because of one thing from the first change. Could you not just reverse one item that was bothering you? Instead of everything- basically taking the county's information page back to the stone age compared to bigger counties in the United States? Not trying to get personal here, but "so called scandals happen all over the US at the local level"- do you see a whole article composed of 4+ sentences on them? What is the significance to the county information here?

Your reason of no censorship doesn't negate all of the other hours of work here. I really hope you are realize this turns me off of doing that work because one user didn't like one thing. I know this will change nothing and you will delete this- so bye for now.

Bluedevils88 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC) bluedevills88

Hi Bluedevils88 and thank you for your message. I reverted your edits for a number of reasons not just one: you removed content that was clearly sourced with the explanation that the article is 'the face of the parish' and comes high on a google source. Sorry but that is just not a valid reason. Organisations of any kind can have their own website to be their public 'face'; wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as you mention, is not censored. You also added a lot of unsourced information, and information that is trivial and does not belong in an encyclopedia (e.g. the names of council members and school board members, lists of taxpaying corporations and roads). Finally, your edits also added non-standard formatting to the article.
I'm sorry that this discourages you from editing. As a worldwide volunteer project, the reality is that anyone can edit wikipedia at any time. Most brand new editors find it takes awhile to get the hang of how this community works, and all the guidelines to follow, and that you do need to not take editing here too personally. I hope you stick around; perhaps the best way to 'learn the ropes' in this community is to make small edits to articles that you are not particularly invested in.
I'm not totally sure what you mean by a whole article of 4+ sentences, but if you feel the section on a 'scandal' is too detailed, you could try editing it down a bit, or you could suggest it be trimmed or even removed on the talk page, but simply deleting the whole thing isn't ok. All of the edits you made are preserved in the edit history, so if things like updated statistics are properly sourced, you can go back and make those smaller changes, or if I have time I might have a go at it myself. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Article query

Melcous (talk), please help me understand the defects the article on Bennett Lorber. Does it give too much detail? Should the lists of professional organization memberships and certifications be culled and made into paragraphs or deleted altogether? Is the personal life section unwarranted? In general, where is it lacking in neutral approach and unencyclopedic? I welcome help toward strengthening this article. Delabrede (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Delabrede and thanks for your question. Please note that you placed it on my user page rather than here on my usertalk page where it belongs (I've moved it here no problem, but for the future its good not to get those two things confused!) A few thoughts on the article for now:
  1. I think the list of professional memberships should definitely be removed - prose is always preferred to lists in biographies, and as it stands it definitely reads as resume like. (It also has some external links which are not ok). If there are one or two key things in that list (e.g. presidency of a notable organisation) that can be sourced to independent sources then perhaps they can be inserted into the career section at an appropriate place.
  2. The lead section needs a bit of work. The opening sentence should usually include the person's nationality and profession (that which they are notable for) rather than current role, so something like "Bennett Lorber is an American medical educator who has been Chair in Medicine (etc) since [year he started that particular role]"
  3. The education section should be moved to above the career section as is standard in a WP:BLP, making it more chronological
  4. The rest of the article could do with some trimming to make it more neutral and encyclopedic. There is lots of wording that gives it the feel of a speech someone would make about a person they are trying to honour rather than a factual encyclopedia article. So for starters, I would remove phrases like having publications "to his credit" (just say he has published x number of articles); and statements like "He has been frequently requested to give papers to members of medical societies and was selected as presenter..." which is completely unsourced, and even if it was sourced should just state the facts and lose some of the flowery language
  5. Having a personal life section is fine, but again the language is too much - I'd take out the adjective accomplished and probably the quote about art being a 'calling'. The link to his website in that section is inappropriate.
  6. In the infobox, the 'known for' is also too detailed and has external links. If you put 'medical educator' as his profession in the lead, remove it from the infobox; I'd remove the presidencies here too, and just have the specific expertise that is his most notable contribution listed here

I hope that helps, I'm sure there is more, but all of that would go a long way to improving the article! Cheers, Melcous (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

-----------
Thanks very much, Melcous (talk). It was stupid of me to put the query on the wrong page. I apologize. Your suggestions are apt and helpful. I'm grateful. Delabrede (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Delabrede, not stupid, just a mistake - we all make them! Glad that's helpful. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
-----------
Update Melcous (talk) -- I have: Reworked lead paragraph. Revised infobox. Tightened language, emphasizing neutral point of view and encyclopedic tone. Replaced dead links. Archived many links. Added External links section. Deleted list of memberships. The article probably still needs some editing to correct awkward phrasing and transitions. Delabrede (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Good work Delabrede. I have done another edit removing some language that I thought was still resume like, and have removed the maintenance template from the article. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-- Thanks, Melcous (talk). Delabrede (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Canal Shores

Please leave this alone. There are no caddies at the course and the Murray brothers did not work there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.16.124 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Please leave this alone. There are no caddies at the course and the Murray brothers did not work there67.173.16.124 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, the information would need to be referenced to a reliable, independent, published source not just from your own personal knowledge. Melcous (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Maybe you can find reference to the caddies from the website or by contacting one of the volunteers who can vouch for the slew of them that work there?24.14.133.176 (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)And by the way - the "published source" listed is apparently something online and is totally incorrect. Have a look at the book that Bill Murray wrote.24.14.133.176 (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

SMU School of Law

Good day, User: Manderiko have reverted what you have eliminated in SMU School of Law to reduce advertisements and overly detailed articles. Applepineapple (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Applepineapple thanks for your message. Note: there is no hierarchy of editors here, so whether an edit is made by a newer editor like yourself, by someone with extended privileges like me, or by an administrator shouldn't matter, the issue is whether it meets the guidelines and policies. So don't point to who other editors are in your edit summaries, just refer to explanations like WP:PROMO or WP:TMI and/or explain your reasons for the edit. If continued reverting keeps happening, the best thing to do is take it to the talk page, and then if that fails, disruptive editors can be warned or reported. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Cumberland

Further to you reverting Cumberland's private details being removed. He asked me for my help as I am involved in publishing one of his books overseas and he had shared about someone creating a fake account of his on social media which included his full date of birth. But the ONLY place on the web with his date of birth is wikipedia. Hence he requested that I remove it. Could you please revert your reverting decision. If easier I can ask Cumberland to connect directly with you? He also said the number of children or name of his wife is also not available on google except on his Wikipedia page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.228.176.131 (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your message. You may be correct about wikipedia being the source of the information, although it must have been added here at one time by someone from somewhere. It is best if the person themselves deals with this, as it is impossible to know who you are as an IP editor asking on his behalf. You can point Cumberland to WP:RFO which provides a form and email address to use to request assistance. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

ok thanks and noted and I will ask Cumberland to do as you suggest. I know he had some issues last year and feels he is too exposed in terms of private details. rgds, Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.228.176.131 (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Simin Saberi

I am a patroler in Wikipedia farsi and just started in English. Article Simin Saberi exists in Wikipedia farsi and this is my second work in Wikipedia English. Simin Saberi is notable as she was a Bahá'í rights activist and for that she was executed by Iranian regime. I demand you help me and tell me how i can keep this article. MA Javadi (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi MA Javadi. First things first, we are all volunteers here, so you do not get to "demand" anything from anyone. Secondly, just because something is on another language wiki, does not mean it meets the criteria for inclusion here. I tagged the article with a maintenance template regarding notability because the English references provided just mentioned Saberi in passing rather than giving any details about her. Sheldybett nominated the article for deletion for similar reasons. As the tag on the article says, you are welcome to share your thoughts on that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simin Saberi but you will need to provide references that show she is notable according to the criteria here on English wikipedia. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi - Thank you for your response. I wanted to fix that myself. appreciate for your help. MA Javadi (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Notability of a railway station

Hello Melcous, you may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hapa_Road_railway_station Rhadow (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

SMU SOL

Hi, I see you are also a fellow academic. The said article in the title has undergone a lot of edits. What exactly do you find promotional sounding? Chensiyuan (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Chensiyuan thanks for your message. I think there is still quite a lot in the article that is promotional sounding. Let's just start with the WP:LEAD and sentences like "Before becoming a full-fledged law school covering all major areas of the law..." or "It now offers ... students can do a second major." or the listing of years of mooting competitions won. Or the final sentence of the lead that alumni are "well represented" in "major law firms" and the name dropping of Harvard and Oxford, neither of which are mentioned anywhere else in the article, without any reference. These are the kinds of things that might belong on the school's own website or in their brochures, but not in an encyclopedia. Melcous (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
"Before becoming a full-fledged law school covering all major areas of the law..." this is a fairly normal way of distinguishing between a law department within a non-law faculty and a law school proper? The former would offer a limited number of subjects but the latter would offer the full spectrum.
As for competition achievements -- isn't the very nature of describing competition results, "promoting", for the lack of a better word? If a school is good in something -- and by good I mean with reference to tangible outcomes, like winning things -- I don't think it's unencyclopedic to report it.
The last part of the lede you mentioned was probably sourced in the body text in a previous edition buried somewhere, but sure it can go if it can't be recovered.
Basically I take my cue from how the American university GA and FA pages are written. Rankings, notable alumni, achievements of students seem par for the course, but I don't think one would simply dismiss these as promotional if they are factual (unlike, say, whether a university is prestigious as a fact versus that as an opinion). Chensiyuan (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Beyond Meat

Hi there. Just wondering about your 1 Feb edit (as it popped up on my watchlist), which deleted a quote as having failed verification. Yet, the previously linked Foster source does contain the quote, which I had also recognized from Farmageddon. I didn't want to just revert your edit without checking.AHampton (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi AHampton, when I click on the link that is provided as the reference (currently footnote number one on the page), it redirects to a home page of Popular Science, thus there is no verification of the quote. If there is another working link that verifies the quote, feel free to add it. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's odd, because the link worked fine when I checked it the other day, before posting to your page, and works fine today, as well (having been left as a source for the intro, quote deletion notwithstanding. I suspect that your ad blocker may be playing a role here. So many companies have become vigilant about readers not using them that content may have simply been withheld (much to many's chagrin). May want to keep that in mind, generally, as it may lead one to 'false negatives'. I restored the much-quoted Gates quote. But, thanks anyway, for tying to keep it real.AHampton (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

template

Actually I deleted it because you put it up there only after me and I do not understand. I do not have a close association and am not a major editor and so its not applicable. what is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeoftheuniverse (talk • contribs) 01:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Dudeoftheuniverse - see the comment on the article's talk page (as well as the edit summary) when it was added) - the article has a history of WP:SPA and apparent WP:COI editing, dating right back to its original creation. Melcous (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

notables

I agree, on Leura, for removing residents without articles, I'm thinking that WP:FAMRES would explain it better than WP:WTAF as they weren't red links. Dave Rave (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Gordon Parker (psychiatrist) Wikipedia entry

Hello Melcous

My apologies. I am credited as a co-author with Gordon Parker of a number of the books listed on his website page. I did not check the Wikipedia rules before making some tidy-up edits, in the circumstances set out below.

The page on Professor Parker seems from the history to have been first uploaded on 12 July 2005. I had no part in that.

My first intervention was on 11 August 2017 to tighten up reference/citation information in response to the Wiki additional citations for verification template, which was then on the site. On 6 September 2017 I removed the template and notified that I had dealt with the issues.

Between 17 September 2017 and 30 January 2019 there seem to have been a series of Wiki fixes to rectify technical problems with referencing modes (Wiki edit history on ‘talk’ page). Thank you.

The first time I looked at Professor Parker’s page after September 2107 was in January 2019, when I saw another Wiki additional citations for verification template.

I made edits on 8 February 2019 that deleted 5 sections for which the referencing was not sufficiently verifiable for Wiki standards:

Concurrent with this (1998-2000), he was part-time Research Director at the Institute of Mental Health (Singapore).[citation needed]

He was appointed as a member of the International Advisory Board of the 1994 DSM-IV Task Force for both Mood Disorders and for Personality Disorders, and a Work Group Advisor for Mood Disorders for the 2013 DSM-5.[citation needed]

In addition to his hospital and private practices, Parker is the peer review consultant to The Lawson Clinic, an independent depression and bipolar clinic which has adopted the Black Dog Institute's sub-typing model of depression.[citation needed]

in 2012 he was awarded a prize by the Australian Journal on Ageing for his book “Managing Depression Growing Older: A Guide for Professionals and Carers”.[10][better source needed]

 In 2011, he was awarded the North Shore Times Community Medal in Medicine.[citation needed]

All of the citations remaining on the page are now verifiable through peer-review journal citations or easy references (for example, for the plays).

After making the edits on 8 February, I removed the Wiki additional citations for verification template and notified that I had dealt with the issues.

I looked at the page soon after to check all was OK and found the template:

“A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require clean-up to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.”

I assume I am the major contributor. The extent of my contributions was the tightening of reference and citation information that I notified on 6 September 2017 and the deletions made and notified on 8 February 2019.

My concern, and Professor Parker's, is now to remove the template currently on the page.

Do you now go through the page to check the reference and citation changes made in August 2017, and to confirm that all that was done on 8 February 2019 was to delete material? If this is not your role, can you please tell me who qualifies to confirm the August 2017 reference and citation changes. I assume the February 2019 deletions do not require further confirmation, as they are deletions.

Thanks for your assistance Lookafter Thepennies (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lookafter Thepennies and thank you for your message. As you have been asked by the subject of the article to edit it, you have a clear conflict of interest and so the best thing for you to do is to not edit the article directly, but rather to suggest changes on the talk page instead. This can easily be done using the Template:Request edit, but please provide reliable, independent sources to verify any content. In terms of the Conflict of interest notice on the article, as you have been a significant contributor to the article, yes that is what it refers to. The best thing you can do about this is to add a Connected Contributor Template to the talk page, which serves as a disclosure of your conflict of interest. Once you have done this, I will be happy to remove the template from the article itself. Let me know if you have any questions - if you have a go at making the disclosure I'm happy to check and make sure it has been done correctly as if you haven't done this before it can be tricky to get all the formatting right. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Dear Melcous, Thanks for your help. I'm new to Wikipedia. While I understand the need for disclosing possible conflicts of interest, I can assure you that the omission on my part is solely due to learning the ropes here. Thanks again! Reabriskin (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Reabriskin, it can be difficult to learn the ropes so please feel free to ask questions as you go! One thing for now, the connected contributor template should go on the talk page of the article (or draft) you have a conflict of interest with, and you need to remove the "nowiki" tags, and also fill in the details. On your user page you should use the Template:UserboxCOI or Template:Paid. Thanks Melcous (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

MARTIN McEVOY EDIT

Hello Melcous I have just noticed that you have edited my page in the personal life section. All it originaaly aid was that I have two Sons and what mu hobbies are. To anyone who knew me at the height of my career they would find it interesting that I now like gardening, reading and writing and not constant work. Also may I ask you how and who can add the correct citations to my page. Thank you. Martin McEvoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.201.80 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused

Hello Melcous,

So sorry to bother you...

My father and father-in-law are both very well know individuals and are both listed on Wikipedia.

I noted that fact in "personal life" section because it's interesting, I'm proud of it, and it's factual.

Can you please help me understand what I did wrong?

Thanks you very much,

Dr. Kirby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wriggley (talk • contribs) 17:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wriggley first things first, you should not be editing an article that is about yourself, and you should definitely not be doing so with clearly declaring that you have a conflict of interest, and even then you should be requesting edits on the talk page rather than making them yourself. (For more information, see the COI guidelines on your talk page). In regards to your specific question, wikipedia does not include information because you think it is interesting or are proud of it, but only what has been reported in reliable, independent secondary sources. So all content needs to be clearly sourced, and even then, it also needs to be not just interesting but notable. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Geoffrey Hinton: Views section

Hi Melcous,

Thanks for the citation edits over at Geoffrey_Hinton/Views.

I think we need to address the parts you took out though. While I agree that my commentary about Hinton's motivations and style of delivery are not directly backed by an independent source and not really a good fit for Wikipedia, I feel leaving some of the remarks without context is even worse. Anyone who has watched Hinton for more than a few minutes knows he habitually makes jokes and often jokes with an acerbic character. For someone who doesn't yet know that, the context-free citations here makes it look like he's willfully doing invention work he believes will have impact similar to the atomic bomb, and cynically shrugs that off, for real. This is a man who moved his career to a different country to escape being beholden to US military for funding. He's repeatedly spoken out publicly against even the development of ML-powered autonomous weaponry. He's known among the community for his exceptional generosity and care towards his students and colleagues. The reported statements were clearly in a cocktail party conversation, as opposed to a requested interview, and it's far from apparent that Hinton even knew Khatchadourian was a journalist at the time. I have followed Hinton's work and appearances extensively, and I find it overwhelmingly likely that he was using dark humor in response to a very dark topic (recall this is in conversation with a man whose main claim to celebrity is heralding the coming A.I. Apocalypse, at a conference which seems to have adopted that as a theme in no small part). Hinton was quite likely even unaware that there was any risk it would be made a public statement. Quoting him on it as if the statement was made completely in earnest is misleading and has elements of character assassination.

Despite what I see as important flaws in the source, I was not prepared to take the entire section out based on it, because I think the "no sooner than 2070" estimate is earnest (if vague and very noncommittal) and the risk attribution to human abuse, and notably not to runaway superintelligence, is perfectly earnest. And both those are pretty valuable to have on record from Hinton as a few points of sound priorities, sanity and moderation in the A.I. risk debate. I question if any of the Khatchadourian article remarks should really be in Hinton's personal article though. Maybe they would sit better, with proper context for the comments, in for instance Existential_risk_from_advanced_artificial_intelligence? (The Oppenheimer paraphrase is apparently already there and the context is shit right now.)

I'm new to editing Wikipedia (because I considered the above faults badly in need for rectification) and I don't have time right now to learn the ropes of how issues like these are traditionally handled by the community. I can't see currently where to discuss this except on individual talk pages, and I certainly don't have the time or the inclination to engage in a tug-of-war about the formulations in the article as the method for discussion. But please be advised that source has problems, and I'd appreciate if you could usher the issue to the right place, maybe while enlightening me about how to handle similar issues in the future.

Jettycut (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

BRIAN TARQUIN

Hello,

I'm not sure why you deleted the entire edit I did on Brian Tarquin. You didn't even bother to read the edits I made. All of the information on this artist is true and supported on the internet. It took a while to do it and I have no relationship with the artist. I found all of the information to be accurate including the Discography and history of his composing. There are published books on all this supporting my edits please go to Amazon Amazon https://www.amazon.com/s?k=brian+tarquin&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss_2.

Please be kind to those other than you contributing on the Wikipedia.

Thank you,

Melissa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgirl68 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Brian Tarquin Edits

Please explain to me why you keep deleting my edits? I'm not the artist, I'm a radio personality and play his music on our Smooth Jazz station and just trying to update his information. Let me know what I'm doing wrong and will following your guidelines. For instance the discography is not accurate so I'm trying to update information.

Please advise. Mgirl68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgirl68 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Brian Tarquin Edits

Thanks Melcous for getting back to me and for the advise. So I made some small edits, adding a few things here and there like discography, the articles he wrote for Guitar Player magazine and the Smooth jazz - Asphalt Jungle albums. I know this artist because we did an interview with him at the end of last year here at the station, plus the internet has a lot of information as well. Just trying to help with adding accurate information. I'm trying to cite the references but it is a bit confusing on how to format it at the bottom of the page. Any tips or shortcuts would be grand.

Thanks Mgirl68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgirl68 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Brian Frosh

I'm good with your edits. They were fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.134.1 (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing Tarquin Edits

Hello

I see you are keeping a very close eye on my edits about this page:) Wondering why you would take the book awards out when they were sourced? In fact someone already had the best book awards sourced in there for Survival Guide For Music Composers & Guitar Encyclopedia before I started editing and now it is gone so I can make better edits.

Please advise.

Thank you Mgirl68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgirl68 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mgirl68, its not that I'm keeping a close eye on you, but that I have that article on my watchlist, which is a system by which editors get notifications regarding articles they have edited. In terms of the awards, I have replaced one that I deleted that did have a source, but the rest did not. I am still not convinced it is a notable award. In terms of sources, what we are aiming for is independent, reliable, secondary sources, so those that are connected to or come from the subject himself are less than ideal. The page does not also need to include everything the subject has done, just that which is notable. Often, by including a long list of minor/non-notable things, it makes the article looks worse by obscuring whatever is truly notable about the person. The Emmy awards in particular need some independent sourcing - as you can see by the previous deletion discussion the fact that Tarquin was just one of a large group of people nominated for these awards, and that they are the 'less prestigious' daytime Emmys means that there was no consensus reached on whether these actually make him notable. Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Melcous,

I wouldn't consider a group of composers any less notable for receiving a daytime Emmy, that's a bit generalizing wouldn't you say? The fact till lies that he did receive Emmy's as an individual composer three times for the show All of My Children. Being in the industry I know many composers who have received Emmys the same exact way regardless of it being Daytime or Primetime. And please note that even if it is a group of composers receiving Emmy's, each composer does receive there own individual Emmy Statue with their names inscribed on it! Very rare is there just a single composer that contributes to a show like this during Daytime. That said, I will look into better sources.

Thank you for your reply.

Mgirl68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgirl68 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Melcous,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Tag on Mandisa Greene

She is the first person of colour to be on the board of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons since it was founded in 1844. I think this is quite significant and certainly makes her notable. I recognise that the page is short, but plenty of wikipedia biographies are. Just sticking a notability tag on it is not very helpful. Jesswade88 (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Jesswade88 The purpose of the notability tag is to ask the question of other editors - are there other sources that can be provided that demonstrate notability more clearly? The sources provided say she is a "Junior Vice President" (not President as put in a number of places) which does not sound like a position that is inherently notable. The question is, what specific wikipedia notability criteria does she meet? Melcous (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

In Regards To Your Message

It is clear from what you have said above about your mother that you are the subject of this article. It appears that you have been maintaining a number of articles about yourself for many years so you may not have been aware of these guidelines, please read them carefully and let us know that you understand what is being asked of you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here. Melcous (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Italic text

This was just brought to our attention the above message from you back in July of 2018. No this is not Mr Tarquin, however we are a management company representing him. We created this page about him years ago and at his request was trying to create one for his mother last year after her passing at 90 years of age in July 2018. We are not aware of any Wikipedia violations broken, as there are a plethora of pages on living artists on Wikipedia. Also no copyright infringements were encumbered as Mr. Tarquin owns all of the content. We go periodically and edit the page adding new content when necessary. From reading your talk pages we see other people have been trying to edit the page with your constant diligence of over writing edits. May I ask who are you and what is your relationship to Wikipedia? Are you an employee of Wikipedia or a volunteer editor? It is our understanding that Wikipedia is a public access site allowing users to create and edit pages. We understand that no promotional material is allowed and of course that was not our intent. However I see you took down everything explaining his vast music career, which was not promotional in any means, including questioning his achievement of receiving Emmy awards. Do you have a certain personal grudge against this artist, as it seems you are very hostile in your message? We have made others pages with no problems for other artists.


All rights reserved,

Rick ****** Esq Jungleboy65 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungleboy65 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

explanation

hello lady Melcous i saw you activated the speedy deletion of my page. The reason you gave was that my page according to your taste was a self promo of my self. It was just a biography. Usually a biography or a Resume are almost the same with the main difference that i'm not looking for a job. Amazing how somebody siting on the other side of the planet can decide what do do and how to do it. there are many pages like mine around .......i follow the structure of one of these. Check STEFANO CECCHI and tell me the difference amomg his page and my page

best (----)

' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristiano Galli-Zugaro (talk • contribs) 16:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Cristiano Galli-Zugaro, thanks for your messages. I nominated what you had written for deletion, but I was not the one who deleted it. The fact that you have simply restored the same content immediately suggests that you have not understood what wikipedia is and isn't for. It would be helpful if you could read through some of wikipedia's core guidelines: This is not a place for writing about yourself or a free web hosting service to store your own resume or biography. Please see here. Thank you Melcous (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

promozione

By the way there was the word promozione that in English means Promotion but that was a magazine that 32 years ago edited an interview that i have released and you have taken that word thinking i was Promoting myself .....promoting myself for what ? (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristiano Galli-Zugaro (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

check many

so please go and delete hundreds of biography in wikipedia......... tell me about this one  : stefano cecchi how you judge this one ?

(----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristiano Galli-Zugaro (talk • contribs) 22:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

who are you?

who are you who gave you the authority to decide to delete pages of other people? in my pages there were many historical contents and facts on my family that you should read and learn about century and century of European events. (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristiano Galli-Zugaro (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, Cristiano Galli-Zugaro, I didn't delete your page. I nominated for deletion according to wikipedia's guidelines, and it has now been deleted twice by an administrator - someone who has been given authority by the volunteer community of wikipedia to make decisions about certain things including deleting pages if they do not accord with the guidelines. As I said on your talk page, wikipedia is a not a free web hosting service or a place to write about yourself. And thank you for pointing out Stefano Cecchi - it does look like a biography of questionable notability and so have made some edits to it and flagged it for some issues. But that isn't really relevant to whether what you wrote is ok or not - see here. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI thread

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. It's kind of dying down as far as you're concerned (reporting editor blocked), but I've extended the discussion and your input would be welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Floquenbeam and thanks for your comments re my (limited) involvement. Seems like you have done a good job untangling the threads and making the appropriate blocks. Cheers Melcous (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Kenny Marks edits

Hi there- I'm not sure why you undid my edit regarding the songs I wrote with kenny, all of which were inspired by a song I wrote alone- Growin Up Too Fast. I rightly edited your assertion that Marks created Jeannie and Johnny. This is wrong. Please revise your edits to reflect the changes which I rightfully and correctly instituted. Thank you

Phil Madeira — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmadeira (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Philmadeira and thanks for your message. I have reverted your edits for two reasons, which were explained in my edit summaries: first because no sources were provided to verify the content, and secondly because you have an undeclared conflict of interest in editing these articles. If you think there is an error or content missing from the articles, as someone with a conflict of interest, the best thing to do is to propose changes on the article's talk page, which can be reviewed by another editor and added to the article if appropriate. If you do so, please provide reliable, independent, secondary sources for the content. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of User:SijoVadakkan

Hi Melcous,

I was notified of Speedy deletion of the page User:SijoVadakkan. Could you kindly help me with retrieving the data in that page? I had contacted you earlier regarding the same.

Kindly revert back with an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sijovadakkan (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Melcous, We have been sending messages to you to retrieve the data from the deleted article. Could you kindly provide the details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1022:C3DB:DD18:BB4A:E19A:2EE3 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Sijovadakkan, I am sorry but I am unable to help you. I did not delete your page - that action was taken by an administrator, although I was the editor who nominated it for deletion because it did not seem to be relevant to the purposes of the encyclopedia. Melcous (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Claire M. Fraser

I'm find your edits to the page I am working on to be highly biased, as in sexist. I used numerous similar Wikipedia pages of male scientists as a guide to appropriate content. It reads no more like a CV than other similar pages from modern, living scientists, including her ex-husband. I find it troubling that a female scientist is being treated differently. More personal aspects were approved in an inappropriate manner. Popular news organizations have noted Fraser's love of poodles, which led to her sequencing Shadow, her standard poodle while at TIGR.

And most troubling was that the article was already highly referenced but reverted to a poorly cited one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhotopp (talk • contribs) 03:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Jdhotopp I'm sorry that you find my edits unhelpful, but the accusation of me being sexist is entirely unfounded - if you look at my userpage you will see that I am female and that I have created over a hundred articles for notable non-Western women. I am not treating this article any differently to the many articles I have edited about males. The issue is whether the articles being created/edited are being done so in a way that they meet the wikipedia guidelines. Your username suggests you have a conflict of interest here, which means you are requested not to edit the article directly but rather suggest changes on the talk page; it is difficult to be neutral if you are writing about someone you know personally. It is fairly standard across wikipedia not to include trivial personal details that have nothing to do with the reasons for which a person is notable. If there are other articles that suffer from the same issues they too should be cleaned up according to the guidelines, but that is not a good argument for keeping them here - see WP:OSE. Melcous (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
This is precisely one of two locations where you violated the harrassment policy in the COI, and you should rectify it immediately. You should also carefully consider this with respect to: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia. Furthermore, your argument that a person can't be sexist or gender biased if they are female is an incredibly poor and naive argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADP85xzVcQD (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I"m sorry ADP85xzVcQS but I still don't understand what it is that you actually want me to do when you say "rectify this". And I was not claiming that a female can't be sexist, I was trying to explain to you that I do not think I have been, which I continue to stand by. None of my reasons for the edits I have made to this article have had anything to do with the gender of either the editors or the subject. And once again, please sign your posts.Melcous (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
ADP85xzVcQD I should also say that the change of username does not resolve the WP:COI issue, appropriate disclosures should still be made on either your user page or the talk page of the article, and you should still respond to the question asked about WP:PAID editing. Melcous (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You should remove content where you try to reveal who you "think" I am including the content above. Furthermore, if you read the guidelines you continually point to: Wikipedia's policy against harassment, in particular, the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline. You had one bite at the apple; you don't get too. No I am not paid, and there is no indication that I am other than your conjecture. Furthermore, you should also read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADP85xzVcQD (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
ADP85xzVcQD thank you for clarifying that you are not not editing in the course of your employment. I think you have misunderstood the "outing" policy - I have not named who I think you might be, nor disclosed any personal information. I will shortly archive my talk page as I do regularly, however, so perhaps that will provide you with what you are looking for. I hope you will continue to edit wikipedia in the areas of your expertise which I am sure will be useful to the project. But I also hope you will understand that the WP:COI policy should be taken seriously even if feels onerous and therefore there should always be a process of disclosure and review for editors who have real connections with people they are editing about, or a choice not to edit such articles. And I sincerely hope that after being asked multiple times, you will in future sign your talk page posts. Melcous (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is this Melcous?

What personal analysis or my own point of view did I add to the Tariq Jameel article? Can you please provide me with any clue? Whatever I added to the article has true and authorised sources. Revert your change and keep my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuhammadIqbal.kmr (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

MuhammadIqbal.kmr wording like "He has been very effective in influencing all types of the community ranging from businessmen and landlords to ministers, actors, and sports celebrities" is both non-neutral/promotional and unsourced; the paragraph mentioning his supposed influence on Junaid Jamshed is referenced with a source that does not mention Jameel; and you have continued to ignore the WP:MOS including use of surname only, formatting, and dates. Please be more careful with your editing and take the time to read the edit summaries and guidelines linked to in them which should help you understand the problems. Melcous (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melcous/Archive_12&oldid=891025790"