hello, why did you delete my changes to robert gant’s page? i added info that is available in an article and corrected a broken link that you changed back to a broken link.

Your deletion of every one of my recent edits in the lead of Psalms article on the grounds that it needs citations and is POV is incorrect in both instances:

Regarding citation in the lead, see: MOS:LEADCITE and note in particular: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

The appropriate way to handle NPOV is for you, the disputer of the information, to open a discussion on the talk page, not wholesale delete everything that was added. See here: [to initiate an NPOV debate?]

Your deletion borders on vandalism. If you can't be bothered to actually do the work to improve the article, leave it alone. --Chefallen (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chefallen you need to understand what vandalism is before glibly throwing around accusations about it. The lead of this article has been the subject of much discussion by many editors over a long period of time. Per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to gain consensus for your proposed changes once they have been disputed. (I will note that another experienced user publicly thanked me for the revert, suggesting they too would dispute it). The lead does not require citations, but it should be a summary of the article and should not include opinions or commentary that are not found elsewhere in the article, which is what you have introduced. Melcous (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note in your edit summary that you object to the phrase "God's protection and salvation" in the statement that book also includes psalms of thanksgiving, wisdom, and confidence in God's protection and salvation; or the phrase "shaping cultural practice for centuries" in the sentence that the book of Psalms has been influential in shaping religious and cultural practices for centuries That doesn't explain or justify why you are summarily deleting everything else. --Chefallen (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chefallen, I have given you some examples of the things I find problematic, I could list more, but this is not the place for such a discussion. As I have said, the lead of this article has been the subject of numerous discussion by numerous editors over a long time to reach consensus on what is currently there. You are wanting to change it, therefore the onus is on you to gain consensus to do so. Take it to the talk page if you want to do so, but please do not post further about this here. Melcous (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have any confect in interest with Ray Russell. I have never been employed by him. I did not advertise anything either. In fact I am unemployed. So for you to delete my work that took me ages to complete and of which I cited from reliable sources is completely unjust! MsMaui (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MsMaui thank you for responding to the question about conflict of interest. You still need to read up on what it means to write from a neutral point of view and avoid promotion because much of what you have included in the article does not meet these guidelines and as such should and will be removed. Please also read up on what constitutes a reliable source, and how sources must actually verify the content in the article. Thank you Melcous (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again I do not have a conflict of interest I randomly chose the page as my first edit. I'm not fan I'm not related to Ray Russell. I just did my homework! You have been reported. My advice is to next time help by improving the citations or message the editor first. MsMaui (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MsMaui I thanked you for answering the COI question and moved on. All those policies and guidelines still apply to your editing. Melcous (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have responded to your WP:ANI report which I believe is fairly frivolous but that's up to an administrator to respond to now. Please also note that I went through the article carefully, and made changes one at a time, with explanations and links to relevant policies in my edit summaries. I would again ask you to read through those linked guidelines so you understand what the issues are - for example, you can't include content with a reference that doesn't actually mention Russell, that fails WP:V. Melcous (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you very much for having a look at the article about Matty Healy. There seems to be a severe need for input by uninvolved experienced contributors, and seeing yours makes me rest assured that such input is now incoming. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you ToBeFree. I've mostly looked at copyediting and some neutrality, it still needs more uninvolved contributors who have a bit more time and knowledge of the subject to address some of the remaining questions, particularly the disputed POV tag. Melcous (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah If (as I guess/hope) the BLPN notification brought you there, that surely is a good sign that more may well follow. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, hope you are doing great? Firstly thank you for doing such an amazing work on here. Some of us are looking forward to this longevity and to have the ability to create more articles like you :) I write in regards to the above article which you added the tag a year now. Couple of tweaking has been made from different editors and also I did some adjustment at the time too.

Could you kindly remove this tag now as I think its the honourable thing to do by asking you to move the tag rather than me just removing it :)

Thank you! Oceanview1590 (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oceanview1590 Thank you, but the issues flagged on Makoto Furutani-Seiki have not been addressed. The article is still an orphan with no incoming links, and the majority of sources are still connected to the subject. Maintenance templates should only be removed once the issues they have flagged have been responded to, which none of the minor edits made have done. Melcous (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciate the steer but the aim of Wikipedia is for articles to be developed not necessarily by the creator of the article but by any other editor who deemed it fit to carry out these edits. It's been 1 year since you noted this, you could have made the necessary changes on this article as contribution to the wikipedia space but you didn't and decided to add a tag to the page which I think its not a fair think to do.

However, you did mentioned above about majority of the sources still being connected to the subject, what's your rationale on this? What specific sources are related to the subject that needed addressing which you couldn't address at the time until now? Its ok to just jump onto a page and add things but wikipedia would be better if editors do some due diligence which I think its not what has happened here. Oceanview1590 (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oceanview1590 - what is my rationale for saying the majority of the sources are connected to the subject? There are currently 34 footnotes in the article (although are number are repeated and should be merged): about a third of these are to sources written by the subject of the article; and at least another third are to profiles/bios about the subject on places like google, their university, research map etc. That is not independent referencing - there needs to be independent, secondary sources. On your other comments, yes, the goal of wikipedia is that articles can be edited by anyone, and in fact the purpose of maintenance templates is to flag issues so that editors with interest or expertise can be drawn to articles to address those issues. But there is no obligation on any editor to do so, rather the obligation is on editors who add content to ensure that it is properly sourced. Melcous (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well said, I will try and review those issues raised over the weekend and get them fixed. I will get the ones that are not directly independent or secondary sources removed as advised. This explanation has helped me understand more about the concept of independent referencing. Thanks

Again, I appreciate your steer on this :) Cheers Oceanview1590 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good Oceanview1590, thank you. Note not all the non-independent sources need to be removed, there just needs to be enough that are independent. I would also suggest that the references to his publications could be moved from references to a publications list - see how it is done here for just one example. Melcous (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted! I will start working on this by tomorrow :) It's early hours of the morning here now in the UK and I need to catch some sleep. Thank you so much for your help! Oceanview1590 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Melcous, I have moved all the references on his publications from references to the publication list. I await your feedback. Thanks Oceanview1590 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Melcous I acknowledge the concern about excessive reliance on sources closely associated with the subject, which can hinder the article's verifiability and neutrality. I have carefully reviewed the sources used and made necessary revisions to ensure a balanced and unbiased perspective. Kindly review and suggest if any further actions are required. I hope these changes have addressed the tagged issues. Thanks Oceanview1590 (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Melcous I have introduced links to the page from related articles, I have also moved all the references on his publications from references to the publications list as advised. I have made the necessary revisions to ensure a balanced and unbiased perspective. Kindly review and advise if all is fine before I remove the tag on the article. Thanks Oceanview1590 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oceanview1590 the two maintenance templates are still relevant - the article is still an WP:ORPHAN, meaning there are no incoming links from any other articles to this one (your edits have added links within this article to others). And I believe there are still too references to his own works and not enough independent. I'm not sure what you mean when you said above that you have moved references to a publication list, as there is no publications list in the article. I can have a go at creating this if you like. Melcous (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You Melcous Of course! I'm glad you're willing to give it a try :) Regarding what I mentioned earlier, it pertains to your previous message dated June 2nd at 00:25, where you said, "I would also recommend relocating the mentions of his publications from the references section to a separate publication list." You also shared a link with me, which I used as a reference. Oceanview1590 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Melcous Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! for all the support and steer for my article - Makoto Furutani-Seiki. I have learnt a lot from these brief interactions and support. Appreciate your time for doing such tremendous work on the article. Oceanview1590 (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back in September 2017 you added four tags to the article on Gösta Pettersson (biochemist). I have removed all of these, for four different reasons, as given in the edit summaries. In particular, I'd like to ask you what brought you to your opinion that it was written like an advertisement, as I cannot see anything that looks like an advertisement. Incidentally I didn't write the article (and didn't know until today that it existed), and I don't know or recognize the name of the editor who created it. Having said that, the article can stand a great deal of improvement, and I hope to start on this. Athel cb (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has been edited since these tags were added, but a number of the issues remain. Notability needs to be demonstrated, not just claimed, so you as an editor saying "no one can doubt his notability" is not enough. The only sources on the article are his own works and you removing the "third party" template saying "this seems to be pure speculation" shows that you have not taken the time to understand what the issue is. I have restored that maintenance template and it should remain until independent, secondary sources are included. These will also help establish notability. Melcous (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. But you have not answered my specific question: "what brought you to your opinion that it was written like an advertisement?" Athel cb (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Athel cb, that was six years ago so I can't be specific about what I was thinking, but when I added that template, the article looked like this - it probably should have been moved to draft space as it was clearly not ready to be in the main encyclopaedia (which is what I would do today if I cam across an article like that - I'm assuming six years ago I did not have the confidence as an editor to make that call). I'm glad it has been improved somewhat since then and that particular tag removed, but as we have both already noted, there is still plenty of work to be done on it. Melcous (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks. I should have said yesterday that you are perfectly correct in saying that an unsupported statement by me doesn't demonstrate notability! I've been working on that today, and I hope a version giving evidence of notability will be ready in a day or two. Athel cb (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I want to thank you for your help in the article, particularly, the formating and the 'citiation needed tags'. I have been able to provide many more citations that I believe are of very good quality.

I also added the english translation for the commentary of David Wagners assessment of his victory, which I believe is a neccessary additition. I am giving you this updates because I like and appreciate your contributions so far, and I want to know if I should be thinking of moving it to the main namespace soon, and any further advice you have on that. Looking forward to your response. Wikieditor1579 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In A. Heather Eliassen, you made many valuable corrections. You also changed fibre to fiber, but I think both spellings are acceptable. The article creator spelled (spelt?) it as fibre, but that is a correct spelling. Am I incorrect? I suspect the UK editors would prefer other editors not "correct" their spelling to that of their former colony. Cheers! Trilotat (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trilotat per WP:ENGVAR, the article should use the English of the topic of the article, which in this case is a biography of an American person. The reference cited for her work also uses that spelling. Melcous (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. Thank you. So, although I'm not of the UK, I must endeavor to use UK English if I generate an article about a Brit. I appreciate the clarification. Trilotat (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Melcous, I notice you have made deletions to two articles I recently wrote. One was the Peta Sherlock bio and the next one was the List of the first women ordained as priests in the Anglican Church of Australia in 1992. Although I eventually work out that you are following relevant WP guidelines (which I also try and do), it would be preferable if you foreshadowed or notified me of proposed deletions in the Talk pages of these articles. In the first case, your trimming of content from the Sherlock article meant that I had to reconstruct the reference list which was quite difficult. It became detached from the content and references disappeared. I also had to find the trimmed text and put it in different articles. In the second list article, you have deleted content which you say is editorial and belongs in the Talk page. I will now have to identify that content in the history and put it on the Talk page as I believe it is still valuable background. The reason I wrote some of that "editorial" content is to directly address the WP:SAL criteria for stand-alone lists, to show to other editors that it had followed guidelines and to give readers an understanding of where the list sits in the "Ordination of women" content and history on wikipedia. I will now have to find all that content again and place it elsewhere. It would have been simpler and more generous to discuss both with me first on the Talk pages. LPascal (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LPascal while I appreciate your concerns, anyone can edit any wikipedia article at any time, and so the suggestion that an editor should be notified before doing so is not realistic, nor expected. I see now that you are the creator of those articles, but that does not mean you have any greater ownership of them than anyone else. In terms of your specific concerns, if you mean the single reference error that was created with this edit, that would have been fixed by a bot within a short period of time which is why I left it alone. In the second one, any commentary about editing an article should never be included in the main space of the encyclopedia, but nothing is ever lost, all content is retained in the edit history and so finding it to copy over is not at all difficult if you believe it is valuable to put on the talk page. Note, I'm not convinced it is - some of what was there is simply not how wikipedia works (e.g. additions can be made to any article at any time, and therefore do not need to be suggested on the talk page first). I understand it can feel frustrating if you feel like people are "messing with your work" but I would gently suggest that is not a helpful way to approach editing on wikipedia because it will simply lead to disappointment as those are not expectations that most editors are operating with. Melcous (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Melcous I hope you're doing well. I wanted to express my gratitude once again for your assistance in fixing my previous article. Your support was invaluable in helping me get it right. I'm reaching out to ask for your help in reviewing another article I've been working on. Before I publish it in my sandbox, I want to make sure it's free of any ambiguity and includes supported links, so it doesn't receive the same tags as my previous articles. If you have some spare time, I would appreciate it if you could take a look and provide any suggestions. Additionally, I made the suggested tweaks for Vusi Thembekwayo, but I'm unsure why the article is still tagged. I removed everything that was requested, but I'm puzzled about the reason behind it. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this matter as well. Thank you. Oceanview1590 (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello dear sir , Can I ask you cooperation in reviewing this article .

Draft:United states of khorasan

With regards Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that is not a topic I have any interest in reviewing. Nor am I a sir. Melcous (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure Mrs Melcous , I am so grateful for your Your previous collaborations.

With your cooperation, I was able to become one of the good editors for Wikipedia. And I enjoy my work.

Thanks again

good time Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Melcous,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hello dear madam , Abdul ali faiq needs to be reviewed .

sincerely Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

where else can easily find this information. this was well sourced. 2604:3D09:A880:500:F429:747D:28CF:1DEA (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a Poli Sci prof in Calgary. This guy was pretty amazing. Why did he second those Bill some which would piss off the government. Ouellette in my research seemed to know how to send a message to the government on various policies. 2604:3D09:A880:500:F429:747D:28CF:1DEA (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Melcous,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am a student at his college and have been tasked by the JCR President to edit the wikipedia article to be more informative regarding the college and what's available in it as part of an initiative to improve our image for students looking for which college to apply to at Durham University. This I am to do in a neutral way by simply showing the possible societies at the college. Prior to my edit, there existed a rugby section on the article, I simply added more detail to it.

I am unable to provide sources because such sources do not really exist. I cannot cite a book or website when describing the rugby club for example or any other society. I have noticed people undoing my edits but I think it is clear that the edits I add are reputable as I am a member of the college. Avessinus (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Avessinus and thanks for your message. As you are a student at the college and have been asked to edit by someone else connected to it, you have a clear conflict of interest and should read and abide by the linked guidelines - in general, you should suggest edits on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. You should also point the President to wikipedia's Paid editing guidelines and ensure s/he understands that wikipedia is not interested in improving the college's image - that is what their own website is for. This is an encyclopedia and as such only includes verifiable information. That means, if there are no reliable independent secondary sources for information, then it should not be included. Thank you Melcous (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have analyzed numerous other pages for individuals and the page for Gerhard is as "neutral" as they are.

Please advise me what I need to do to make the page more neutral and encyclopedic and less "like a resume" Haleden (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haleden as you have seen, I have made some edits to the article to address the issues and removed the resume like tag - although there remains work to be done on the article, particularly to find independent sources. Thanks Melcous (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can you point out which "sources too closely associated with the subject" to help improve the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haleden (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haleden, sources which are not independent would include those written by Fischer, and those published by places he works for. Melcous (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I have included a third-party reference. Is that sufficient to remove the third-party macro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haleden (talk • contribs) 13:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haleden, no including one random third party reference (which is not integrated into the article) is not the solution. The goal is that the whole article overall is reasonably well sourced and content verified by independent sources. Melcous (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I was going based on something on Wikipedia: Independent Sources which said "((Third-party)), to tag pages that contain zero independent or third-party sources"

I agree that more is needed, but it is an attempt at a start. I do not appreciate your calling it "random"--it was carefully researched to find something from a third-party. I do not find that helpful or welcoming at all. Haleden (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

will you share suggestion on how to remove deletion tag on wiki article. Julie11094 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julie11094 I will not discuss anything with you until you have complied with the paid editing disclosure. Melcous (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Melcous, about a month ago you put a template on an entry I intensively edited, Ehud Shapiro. I took care of the citations per this demand. Could you please remove the template? This will be well appreciated. Best, Qdotz. קוונטום דוץ (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In your statement you state that I must submit any requests for content updates relating to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unify_(company) and I must use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. As I am employee of Atos.

However if I go to 'Request Wizard' it states that I must ‘Disclose payment’. I have been asked to update the company website by my manager. There is no additional specific payment being made for me to update the Wikipedia web page for the company.

I have already disclosed that I am employed by Atos.

When I try and access the page to ‘Create edit request’ the page states “You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:”

So how can I raise a request for the web page to be updated!

Thank you.

CarltonLangton (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CarltonLangton thanks for following this process and for reaching out with your question. As you have already made the disclosure on your user page, when you go to the Edit Request Wizard, you should just be able to go to the box for either small or large request (as appropriate) and enter the name of the page - Unify (company) - and click create edit request. That will take you to the talk page and outline what you need to include. I'm not sure what is going wrong, but I am wondering if you have added details like the https:// as you have above for the page name? If so, it is literally just the title of the article that goes in the box (so just the word Unify followed by the word company in brackets), nothing more. Thanks Melcous (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In your edit of Gordon W. Blackwell, you removed a list of accomplishments during his tenure. Please explain why. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 11:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mgreason I removed them because they read like a resume - and none of them were specifically linked to him, just what occurred while he was in the role. That is the kind of thing institutions say about themselves (and was solely sourced to the institution's website), not what should be in an encyclopedic biography. It would be far better to include what third party sources say about the person who is the subject of the biography.Melcous (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you give your thoughts on Zearn? The sourcing and tone is quite biased. There are quite a few screen shots in there and they were all uploaded by Henderson and all the copyright releases are in place, which is rather unusual amount of effort to invest into the background work. I feel this might be coordinated between the subject company and the editor in question and I wanted to get another set of eyes on it. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Graywalls I've had a look through and made even more significant cuts in an attempt to make it more neutral and encyclopedic, and less what the company says about itself. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you also feel undisclosed paid editing maybe at hand? Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graywalls, I'm not sure about paid, but from a quick google and the editor's previous history, I can't help but wonder if they have a family member who works for the company and thus a WP:COI. Melcous (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you looked at the info on the screen shots that was present, they're all from zearn.org and there's OTRS ticket on file for all of them. Only someone on behalf of Zearn.org can sign away copyright for their stuff, so I feel like there's been behind the scene coordination to prepare for article creation. Graywalls (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah ok, that does sound like it. I've left a COI disclosure request on the creator's talk page. Melcous (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk about a can-o-worm we opened up. Graywalls (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graywalls, can-o-worms indeed! Thanks for pointing it out though - so far every paid article disclosed is significantly problematic. I'm concerned that the responses we're getting are all very "pat", saying exactly what we ask/want to hear, without demonstrating any real understanding of the issues. Do you think its time for ANI? Melcous (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Graywalls:, @Netherzone: thanks for your help on this. Like you guys, I've been trying to go through some of these many articles and am ever more frustrated at the style of trivial, hyper-local, and poorly sourced writing masquerading as encyclopedic content. I can't quite believe that I've just removed the sentence His funeral took place on Thursday morning with many of his close friends attending. from a biography [1]! Melcous (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Graham Hill (theologian), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Thank you for reviewing the Mudjekeewis D. Santos page. I am a new editor, I hope you could help me improve the "Early life and education" section of the page so the tag could be removed. Thank you. I'm trying to find other citations for that section now. VME1500 (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added additional references now to the page. Thank you. VME1500 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Lori Heyman Gordon I just happened to notice you've moved this to draft while I was going through old stuff. Did you happen to see this? COI/N about MerlinsMagic Graywalls (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Graywalls: no I hadn't seen that, thanks. I moved it because it was in Wikipedia rather than article space, but this confirms it was a decision that could have been made for multiple reasons! Melcous (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to recommend I be allowed to create an article on myself please? GregoryJGarrett (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GregoryJGarrett, as you have been advised multiple times on your talk page, wikipedia is not the place for personal profiles. Nothing you have previously written demonstrates that you are notable, and a quick google search does not show up any reason why you would meet the criteria for an article. If for some reason you can demonstrate that you meet WP:ANYBIO, then you should only edit using the WP:AFC process to create a draft that can be reviewed by others and not published by you. You should also read WP:PROUD about why having a wikipedia article about yourself is not alwasy a good idea. Melcous (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why professional wrestlers get a article on them And I don't? GregoryJGarrett (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure why you propose to delete the notes that I am taking with the only goal to improve Epistemology. Perhaps, you got confused by the fact that I have written a small paragraph with my personal opinion, but this is less than 1% of these notes and the idea is that it useful that editors know what other editors have understood from the sources - it is still all about sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this editor has been previously active outside user space in their declared prior (lost) account. I am removing the CSD on that basis. @Dominic Mayers I suggest that you perform a body of mainspace edits. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, of course, I very much want to do that and I am thinking about that all the times. It should happen relatively soon. Please understand that there is a lot of view points about beliefs, etc. and the current article is not neutral at all, but I need to be sure that I covered the sources correctly. It is also that this is an old article with some people "protecting it", naturally thinking in good faith that it is the result of a long consensus, despite the fact that it is very much not neutral, but I need a good review of sources to make this clear. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Melcous,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This note has to do with wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sathya_Sai_International_Organization . You were right in deleting my big change; I was wrong in adding a lot of info before looking carefully at the talk page, and wrong for another reason.

I am a past officer of the Sri_Sathya_Sai_International_Organization (https://www.sathyasai.org), and having this wikipedia page in its present state does not speak well of the organization. Thar is why I took a long time to build a page and then insert it. But I forgot completely about conflict of interest; it was against Wikipedia rules for me to do that! I'm wondering if I can update the page in pieces, under your supervision, being extremely careful to (1) verify everything possible and (2) stay away from self-promotion statements. I would start by adding the following note to the talk page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sathya_Sai_International_Organization.

Proposal to expand this site The Sri Sathya Sai International Organization (SSSIO) has been existence for a long time. Here is its webpage: https://www.sathyasai.org We are interested in seeing its wikipedia page expanded into a reasonable description of the SSSIO and its activities. I can do this, but I would need supervision because I have a conflict of interest: I was previously an officer of the SSSIO. As a start, I would propose to change it to include (only) the lede (information before the table of contents) that can be found in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidGries/sandbox . Thereafter, if it is deemed appropriate, I could add one section at a time, under supervision, until a reasonable site has been developed. DavidGries (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DavidGries:, thank you for your explanation. As you have a conflict of interest, you are requested not to directly edit the article at all. Instead, you should suggest changes on its talk page, making sure to provide reliable, independent sources when you do so. The easiest way to do this is to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Thank you Melcous (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page ( Robert H. Meneilly ) was tagged for "rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" and asked to "improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources."

In response to that I would say that:
a) I've endeavored to reference any fact listed on the page. If anyone can see one that I have not, I would be happy to either find a reference or remove the fact.
b) Several sources were given that are not closely associated with the subject:

• www.presbyterianmission.org
• shawneemissionpost.com
• www.kansascity.com (Kansas City Star newspaper)
• www.monmouthcollege.edu
• www.jcprd.com
• www.mainstreamcoalition.org
• www.washingtonpost.com
• www.bizjournals.com
• www.au.org (Americans United)
• documents.adventistarchives.org
  c) Of the sources that are admittedly close to the subject, there are:
• www.villagepres.org ... The website of the church that he founded. Are we saying that what a church said about its founder is unreliable?
• The only other such references come when the page talks about stances that the subject took (often controversial ones for someone in his position such as environmental protection, civil rights, separation of church and state, etc) and so I thought the *best* way to source those comments was to link to audio recordings where the user could actually hear those stances in Meneilly's own words, which I would consider far more authoritative to the subject at hand than some journalistic report about what he was supposed to have said.

Having said all of that, if there are references that, if replaced, would improve this page, then please let me know so that I can do so.

Note: I've added the above comment to the Talk for the page ( Talk:Robert_H._Meneilly#Sources for the page on Robert H. Meneilly ) in case you would rather discuss it at that location than this. TDinKS (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I understand you removed the ‘unreliable sources’ for good reason. However, I also added further information to other previous references, so is it possible for you to take a closer look at some of my edits that had nothing to do with ‘unreliable sources’. Thanks. Carey3146 (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carey3146 if you make a single edit that includes such a blatant misrepresentation, then you can expect it to be reverted, no matter what else is done at the same time. It is up to you make smaller less controversial edits if they do not include this. Melcous (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok Carey3146 (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The article is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim May (chemical engineer) where all opinions are welcome. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timtrent I wonder if there is a WP:COI issue - given the creator of the article has uploaded the infobox photo as their own work? Melcous (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I consider that there is, despite assurances that there is not. Wikipedia, however, must take the assurances at face value. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see the ongoing discussion on Who's Who, The Australian edition at WP:RSN which is highly suggestive of the primary nature entries here.

The discussion is by no means concluded, but its progress is interesting 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I ask why you're mass nominating for deletion well-developed articles of historical sea captains for deletion, considering they're all created by the same exact user? Nominating so many articles can cause great stress and discouragement to the user who's having so much of their work all considered for deletion all at the same time (it's happened to me before, albeit at a much lesser scale - and it was still very stressing for me, so I can't imagine how it feels for that user). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BeanieFan11 if you look at the editor's talk page, including the last couple of archives, you will see that this is part of an ongoing discussion around significant conflict of interest as well as paid editing, as well as the creation of a walled garden of articles around certain topics using sources that often do not verify the content included or do not provide significant coverage. Happy for you to look into it and if you think there are legitimate notability factors for some of the subjects of articles, please point out which ones and why, but unfortunately focusing on how the editor feels about this is something that should not come into it. Melcous (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BeanieFan11 thank you for striking your comment about harrassment. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder if some sort of community arrangements can be made allowing the use of PRODs on Greg authored articles such anyone but Greg can petition the PROD as to save community resources processing Greg article AfDs. Graywalls (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Partly this is though authorship of an obscure pamphlet on a local church currently in Draft. I feel we are trying to educate an academic in the ways of Wikipedia. You may have read WP:ACADEME. I fear we may be unsuccessful. I think I've been trying for over year now. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This draft is almost unsourceable, yet I am pretty sure the subject is academically notable, being cited reasonably highly despite working in a niche field. Are you ablate finding obvious sources that might allow it to survive as an article? wikidata:Q93241403 suggests him to have been prolific, but no news coverage appears to exist. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you think of Don Chow Tacos ? Just like those Greg related still alive questionable notability BLPs, the articles about recent era questionable notability people, companies and products, record labels, actors and such are arguably more problematic than those decades ago. There are a ton of them too. Graywalls (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Graywalls: Wow. That was heavily promotional for a food truck that was operational for 6 years and has been closed for 8?! I've taken a heavy scapel to it as well as putting a notability tag on it. Melcous (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that's bad, see these (two out of too many to list out) ReAnimator Coffee and Guy Fieri's Flavortown Kitchen. When you browse through categories such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Restaurants_established_in_2021 you'll see just how bad companies, people and products articles can be. I feel non-notable company pages of present day relevance that essentially use Wikipedia as auxiliary websites is a higher priority than things from 19th century. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't an argument to avoid deletion but these make all those sea captain articles look benign. Graywalls (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Gerda! Melcous (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just made a formal proposal at the current foot of this topic. I am leaving this message on all this discussion's participants' talk pages to draw attention to the proposal. Your opinion, whatever it may be, is welcome at that proposal 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the Village Presbyterian Church (Prairie Village, Kansas) page, I see that you recently made 3 changes. I agree with the first 2, but the 3rd one you say Wiki is not a directory. The reason I disagree about this deletion is that the text is not a directory, no email or phone number or address information is listed. Only names, titles, and start dates. I take that as informational about the subject, not a directory for contacting these folks. TDinKS (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TDinKS, thanks for your message, and I understand that that may have been an unhelpful shorthand explanation for my edit. But the fact remains that none of these people are notable, and the information is sourced only to the church's own website - which is where it belongs, not in an encyclopedia. Another editor has already removed it again. If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion on the talk page, but I think it is clear that a listing of current staff is not encyclopedic information for a church. Melcous (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's agree to disagree. I can understand the subject of the page needing to be "notable". But does every piece of information about the subject need to be notable also? If that's the rule-of-thumb, then nearly every page in Wikipedia needs to be cut back all over the place. For example, Big Ten Conference:

• Listing the amount that each football coach is paid? Is that really "notable"?
• Sentences like "As intercollegiate football rapidly increased during the 1890s, so did the ruthless nature of the game. Tempers flared, fights erupted, and injuries soared." Notable?
• Or "Missouri showed interest in Big Ten membership after Penn State joined." Never joined, just had interest, notable?
• Listing a ton of details about their Broadcasting and media rights?

These are all interesting pieces of information, ones that I enjoy reading, but if the standard is "notable", I don't think any of them (or a ton others) meet that standard.

Having said all that, I'm not going to pursue this point. 172.56.249.90 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry ... that previous reply was me ... I forgot to log in. TDinKS (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TDinKS:, see WP:OSE - it doens't really matter what is in other articles, but no not every single fact in an article itself needs to be "notable". But it is a generally accepted principle here that lists of names of people within articles should usually include only those who are notable. An exception might be where an independent reliable source makes mention of people specifically in regard to a topic, but simply copying a list of employees from any organisation's own website is not what this project is for. Thanks Melcous (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am writing to bring to your attention a concerning issue regarding a specific Wikipedia user Melcous who has been consistently deleting posted information and articles despite the presence of reliable sources both internally and externally and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines. User: Melcous Behavior: The user, Melcous, has repeatedly deleted information and articles from Wikipedia pages without reasonable justification or consensus from other editors. The deleted content is well-sourced, follows Wikipedia's guidelines, and is relevant to the respective articles. Problem: This behavior not only disrupts the collaborative editing process but also hampers the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. It creates a hostile editing environment that is not conducive to productive collaboration. Evidence: Attached are specific examples of Melcous's deletions that violated Wikipedia's content guidelines. The removed content includes verifiable information and citations. Request: I kindly request that Wikipedia administrators investigate this matter and take appropriate action to address the user's disruptive behavior. I believe that persistent deletion of verifiable information, especially without consensus or valid reasons, violates Wikipedia's policies. Jasonnsg23 (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jasonnsg23 this is my talk page so I'm not sure why you are posting this here - if you want to engage in a constructive conversation with me you may do so, otherwise do not post here. Let me spell it out for you:

• I did not delete what you wrote - an administrator did that;
• What you wrote was entirely promotional and suggested you are writing about a business you have a conflict of interest with or are paid to write about, which is a violation of wikipedia's guidelines;
• Your comment here says you have "attached specific example" when you have done no such thing;
• And you did not provide reliable sources for the content you posted, you simply linked to other wikipedia articles and to business pages

Melcous (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

I notice you've marked that the page has not met the markers for notability. Could you guide me on what else you'd like to see? The company has featured multiple times in main stream media and has 1.2 million members. It has produced its own analysis based on ONS data that highlights the challenges faced by the over 50s. This analysis has been used by multiple mainstream media outlets that will be influencing social change.

There are a number of citations that link and evidence this. I can add more? Keen to understand what needs to be done here.

Thank you Beanislife (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just read WP:AFC apologies. I will go through that. Beanislife (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Melcous:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1500 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Melcous,

Please restore my deleted article as I would like to rectify my mistake. Hafizastronaut (talk) 07:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Just to let you know thar I'm still working on this article and intend find some sources and condense and do a slash and burn of the rest. So it's actually easier to have the unsourced content there for a little longer. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like Henderson is plotting out re-creation of consensus deleted NN bio page on this guy again. Graywalls (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent reversion appears somewhat odd as it claims "advertisement" whereas my only change was to the sequence and grammar, which led to a misleading understanding of the church function, which is mainly used as a visitor attraction. My guess is that you have never been here and so cannot understand its function.--Stephencdickson (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stephencdickson you still do not appear to have learned how to comment on content rather than on editors. You know nothing about where I have been or my understanding, so please try to refrain from making assumptions about me. My edit summary was pointing out the fact that wikipedia is not an advertisement, ie, that content about the opening hours and cost (or lack of cost) for visiting do not belong here, particularly when they are completely unsourced. Melcous (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. That was choice. Why didn't supply any references. Since when is it cool to add unsourced content to an unsourced article, so that somebody else is left to source it. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'd be grateful if you could reply to the letter on my talk page responding to the reasons for your deletion of my page. Thanks very much. Maggicmoggy (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maggicmoggy I did not delete the article (note, it is not "your page"), I moved it to the draft space. You should use the WP:AFC process to submit it for review. Melcous (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I used 'my page' in the colloquial sense. I realise the page doesn't belong to me. Apologies for not being literal, which I know is a problem for some people. Thank you so much for your guidance. I think you'll find that you can do the same job on Wiki, and get much further with less conflict, if you are just a little more kind to people. I'm sorry if that offends you. The truth is some of us are new here and have found this process extremely confusing and difficult. It really helps if people explain, rather than take the line that we are acting in a criminal way against Wiki. It's simply ignorance. I'm a very experienced editor and this kind of welcome really doesn't encourage me to want to get involved. I hope my words don't offend, I'm sure you're doing your job to the best of your ability, but the reproachful tone does seem rather excessive. 91.125.5.185 (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't actually find it now, let alone put a code on it. Maggicmoggy (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maggicmoggy I'm sorry you find my tone "reproachful" but that is your read not my intention - that's the problem with written communication, you simply can't know someone's tone, all you have to go on is the words, which is why their meaning matters so much. You can find the draft easily by looking at your contributions, or simply by going to Draft:Boo Sutcliffe. Melcous (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that, I've done this now. Maggicmoggy (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Melcous,

I am following up to your note regarding the edits that you deleted that were recently made to this page. I had already added the suggested edits to the Talk page back in October but they were not noted or reviewed. Can someone please review and add these back? The edits are factual, non-promoting career achievements that include links and citations.

I greatly appreciate your feedback and assistance.

Beegirl33 (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beegirl33, a few things:

1. you need to use an edit request template in order to let people know that you have made a request on the talk page. The easiest to use is the Wikipedia: Edit request wizard
2. you may need to be patient. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and just because it takes time is not a good enough reason for you to edit the article yourself against the WP:PAID guidelines
3. you marked your edit as WP:MINOR when it was clearly not
4. the content you added (and that you have suggested on the talk page) is not "non-promoting" but is written in a way that reads like it was written by/for your client (e.g. words like "iconic", "legend" and "high profile" are not neutral and will never be acceptable here)
5. adding lists of his clients is not encyclopedic content. They would only be able to be added if reliable, independent sources had for some reason named them in connection to him and even then there might be discussion about the encyclopedic value

I would suggest your review your request and consider if there is anything in the article that is factually incorrect or missing that a neutral encyclopedia reader would need to know, rather than what he would want to say about himself, and either focus on that, or as previously advised, focused on editing other articles where you do not have a WP:COI and are not being paid. Thanks Melcous (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fyi, when the account's edits relate to or reference the org username, you can go straight to WP:UAA rather than needing to warn. Uhai (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your change after "Author" makes no sense. Instead, please revert to the original adding the seven NY Times hardcover bestseller citations below as originally requested. Thanks! The Season: https://www.salon.com/1999/12/02/palmbeach_2/ https://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/12/business/business-best-sellers.html?searchResultPosition=7 In the President's Secret Service https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2009/09/06/hardcover-nonfiction/ The First Family Detail https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2014/08/24/hardcover-nonfiction/ Inside the White House https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/05/books/best-sellers-march-5-1995.html The Secrets of the FBI https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2011/08/28/hardcover-nonfiction/ A Matter of Character https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/books/arts/best-sellers-september-12-2004.html?searchResultPosition=10 Laura Bush https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/books/arts/best-sellers-april-23-2006.html?searchResultPosition=6KesslerRonald (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Ronald KesslerReply[reply]

KesslerRonald I removed the claim because it was unsourced. I have added it back with an independent source. Melcous (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KesslerRonald, concerns about the details of the article belong on its talk page, not here. You should be careful to abide by WP:COI. The article was completely cherry picked to only include quotes that were flattering to you. You do not own this article and you do not get to dictate what is included in it. If there are factual errors, use the COI edit request tools to propose changes and let neutral editors decide. Melcous (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, but below is of critical importance:

From Wikipedia on using Media Matters as a source:

Partisan sources

Extremely partisan sources, such as the progressive Media Matters for America and Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, and the conservative Media Research Center, Newsmax, World Net Daily and Newsbusters, are of limited utility at Wikipedia. These should never be used as sources of fact in the article mainspace, due to their poor history of fact-checking and their practice of editing out of context, spin-doctoring, selective presentation of the facts, and general partisan mendacity. They always weigh in on one side of every issue, and consistently display little regard for actual facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Hyperpartisan_Sources_1 KesslerRonald (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Melcous,

An article creator has the right to object to draftification and move an article from Draft space back to main space. You shouldn't draftify an article more than once. If it still seems unsatisfactory to you, you can a) try to improve the article yourself, b) tag it with an indication of problems that exist and where improvement is needed or c) pursue one of our deletion options. But you shouldn't get into a move war with another editor. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thanks I was unaware of this. It seems to result in an odd outcome in this case when the mainspace article was literally labelled a draft, but I get that that is what the guideline says. Melcous (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, 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. Each review will earn 1 point. 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Melcous, thank you for keeping an eye to this page. I noticed that you added a third-party sources notification. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. Can you help me point out which specific phrases or sentences are the ones that need more sources?

It seems to me that the text is quite neutral and it can be veriable through the citations displayed in the page. But probably I'm wrong. Can you guide me with this?

Thank you,

All the best, Oscar.garcia.miranda (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message Oscar.garcia.miranda. The issue is not about the text being neutral or verifiable, but rather that the majority of sources seem to be connected to the subject himself. We are lokign for what other people say about him. So, for example, the whole Work section is predominantly sourced to what he has written, rather than what other people have written about his work. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see, sorry for my confusion. Thank you, Melcous. Oscar.garcia.miranda (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think this one passes WP:ANYBIO? It's extensively based on primary sources, government records, and a magazine article written by his grandson. Graywalls (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Melcous, please, review your tags on Jeremiah Dermot O'Connell, as he meets WP:ANYBIO and all citations are verifiable. Regards. Bemmax (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bemmax which of the three criteria of WP:ANYBIO does he meet? Melcous (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion, he meets 1 & 2. Bemmax (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bemmax I do not see how he can possibly meet 2 Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians; and I'm not seeing either the sourcing or the wikipedia article to demonstrate that any award he has received rises to the level required by 1. Melcous (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Melcous, I didn't think of it in that way. I thought if one holds an unprecedented and "widely recognized contribution" that is widely published, it would be enough to say it's an enduring historical record. Historical records are not only curated in books. They can be curated in any published format, newspapers, documentaries, etc. And in this case we have a lot of newspapers doing so. In the course of writing this article, I learned of at least two biographical books on the subject mentioned in some articles but I couldn't lay my hands on any. I can't think of any school principal anywhere in the world that has served in the same capacity for half-a-century. The closest I know is 43 years, and with extant public service laws in Nigeria at least, it will be impossible to have any school principal spend more than 20 years in that position ever again. Be that as it may, except I'm reading WP:ANYBIO wrongly, I think the three criteria stand independently - meeting one is sufficient to pass notability. Member of the Order of the Federal Republic (MFR) is one of the highest awards anyone can receive in Nigeria. The honour is guided by an Act of Parliament and only the president of Nigeria sanctions it. There is no award in Nigeria that is more notable than the national honours. If it can't be recognized as what it is then it means no awards from Nigeria would pass ANYBIO (1), and I doubt if that's the case. Bemmax (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bemmax: like most national honours, the Order of the Federal Republic has various tiers. It would seem obvious that those who receive Commander would meet ANYBIO #1 simply by virtue of the award, and perhaps it could be argued about Officer, but Member is a lower tier. There have been many previous discussions about the ANYBIO criteria regarding the orders of the UK, Canada, Australia etc all of which have concluded that Member is not sufficient (see here for example). So that award in and of itself is not sufficient to meet this criteria (nor is it properly sourced in the article). So, again, ANYBIO is not met here. Melcous (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to create some new pages so I went to the WikiProject Nigeria page to get some suggestions, and I found him and a few topics I thought were notable and interesting enough and did. I must say that I have learnt a lot from this discussion and I find your arguments compelling. I have always assumed that anyone with a national honours meets this criteria. For it being properly sourced, I have searched for the official gazette of the award online to no avail. But there are several Nigerian national newspapers that have written about it. So, I believe that to be a fact. In the course of searching, I have come across many other sources that have written about him, including an elaborate news report on the Nigerian Television Authority. Thank you for taking time to explain. Regards. Bemmax (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello, i made factual changes on his page about his performing arts background that are also verifiable in a Penn Gazette article, that were now deleted twice, and also fixed a broken reference link which you reset back to the broken link. can you please tell me why you removed my changes? Mirth1220 (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mirth1220 as I noted in the edit summary, I reverted your edit becasue it added content, including a quote, without providing a source. I did not change the link you updated in the early life section. Thank you Melcous (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok i re-added the changes before the reference number 2, as both of the performing arts groups i added are mentioned in that article. the information is accurate. Mirth1220 (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]