![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have created a reference topic on "Significance of Cyber Threat Intelligence" & it's been removed due to some reason. I have defined everything clearly on mail, pls check and let me know where exactly I did wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeshek0419 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Well done mar. I really appreciate your effort, please can you assesse this article? Draft:Transparent Hands Foundation Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well done mar. Recently a new emir was appointed in one of kingdoms in Nigeria and I noticed that the article is not on wikipedia. I request you to look into the article, thank you. Draft:Kabiru Muhammad Inuwa Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Well done for good work. And thank you for making wikipidia unpromotiotional environment Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to improve Abdullah Al-Salloum, an article that I've created. Your recent edit has accidentally deleted reference sources -^18, ^19 and ^20- that are already being used in different locations in the article. Please help retrieve those sources back. Thank you again. --Aaehasa (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Please mar. Can you describe me how to upload an original image on a page? Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if you know but you have just vandalised one of the most important page in the history of my school. t kakaliki. We students welcome changes and criticism but not complete deletion of a work we put in months of our efforts. Gros sauvage blanc. Please do realise that not all african countries have well access to webpage creation like you people do. Pitin, gros pitin. Thank you for your understanding and wish you and your family well. Fr moi croir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.111.169 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Melcous,
I hope that you are well.
I submitted an article for review yesterday and I have been notified that it has been speedily deleted due to being considered as 'unambiguous self promotion'.
I completely understand Wikipedia's stance on self promotion. The article I submitted was admittedly about my own career journey, however I was sure to write the article in a purely factual and encyclopaedic way. I considered it to be notable as I included almost 30 citations and references from secondary sources and reputable Australian publications that supported the content.
I am an Australian businessman with a passion for entrepreneurialism. My career and business successes have been well publicised in the media for several decades. I am aware of other wiki pages for business people and entrepreneurs such as Edward Pretty, which details their career and business journey's. I personally don't see any difference between those articles and my own and am therefore unsure why my article has been deleted.
I would be open to your feedback and expertise to assist me with getting my article published if you could be so kind to respond I would greatly appreciate your assistance.
![]() | |
One year! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Dear Melcous, I am not a frequent user of Wikipedia (to be fair I had never done modifications in the past), but I recently found out that the majors of study of Prof. Sovacool had been omitted except for his PhD. I see absolutely no reason for this information to be discarded (even if working as an energy expert today, he would probably prefer to leave it implied that his previous studies were in engineering or science fields which is not the case), and thus added it, which I consider important (and it is the norm in academia to be transparent about what you studied and where your expertise comes from).
I have seen the modifications I had made had been deleted, I didn't understand what happened and now I just discovered the "View history" section, and it seems that you are the one who deleted that. If this is the case, could you please tell me why ? In case, it's because you were unsure of the veracity of this change, Prof. Sovacool's CV is available on the university he is working in : https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/benjamin-sovacool(fca10105-c4eb-4f0f-99a7-a354a8a8a47a)/cv.html?id=55652968
Thank you, Best, 2A00:F90:FEB:AF00:69B2:96B3:D6CA:D35 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Cédric
Dear Melcous, thank you four your quick response. I edited once again doing what is (I hope) a proper job sourcing. Best, 194.230.158.199 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Cédric
You of all people should know how much research goes into this completely voluntary site. So, why does it seem that you are obsessively undoing every single edit I write? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t understand why you get to determine what is and is not reputable. The sources I found were not any less than those found on other pages. You deleting literally everything that I edit is vandalism. This is a VOLUNTEER job. Treat it as such and stop being a bully. RedDirtRedBird (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It’s not fair that you’re destroying this page just because of my recent edits. Some of the edits I’m noticing were not even done by me. You can’t tell me that things such as where a person grew up is listed on some news source. It’s in a bio and that’s where I got some info as does anyone on any page about a living person. How do you have so much time on your hands to bully new users? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t have a connection with her but didn’t realize I needed to!! I’m just trying to edit based on information I researched and it’s frustrating when it just gets deleted every time I try. No don’t really understand any of this. What is a reputable source? Her biography and news from her website doesn’t count? Where do you find information on any of the subjects then? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for my frustration. Thank you for the information. I’m kind of skeptical to move on to any other articles because I feel like I’ve called so much attention to this one that you’ve now deleted a lot of this poor girl’s page and added notifications at the top. Looking at other celebrity Wikipedia pages, I’ve noticed that the sources are no different than the ones that were on this one. Aside from finding a link to her birth certificate, how does anyone prove someone’s birthday with a “reputable source”? They don’t. But Wikipedia allows it. And the Finnish heritage stuff...she literally speaks Finnish, but what newspaper article talks about that? None that I can find. It’s just knowledge you gain from learning about this singer. But Pamela Anderson is also Finnish and there are no newspaper links cited to back that up. These are just things that I feel are being overly scrutinized and I think it’s valid information and defines the artist. That’s actually how I became interested in editing this page first at all. Heritage fascinates me, and that’s what I’d like to say. But how do I add it when there aren’t any newspaper articles about that specific topic. Just her public DNA file which is evidently not “reputable”. RedDirtRedBird (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement! It definitely is a lot to learn! RedDirtRedBird (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I toured with the band, and was at all of these shows. They opened for all these acts. The tour history, cited, verifies it. Two primary sources -- what more can I say? Accurate Sea (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I was literally *on-stage* for ALL of these concerts. I can 100% confirm, swear to the Lord, that these concerts occurred. Further, the band's website clearly lists all the concerts: http://www.zoxband.com/#tourdates I am the primary source (the individual who was there), and if that is not sufficient, you can ask the band's booking agent, www.caa.com. This is not a conflict of interest. Also, if you'd like to call me, i can tell you in detail about every single one of these concerts in question. 16:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. To satisfy Verifiability, according to Wiki guidelines, I have “presented what the various sources say”, by adding the phrase “According to the band’s tour page” to the sentence with citation #1. Remember that “Citations should be evaluated on the qualities they bring to the article, not on the quantity of citations available,” according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue
Although possible, it would be unrealistic—-and not appropriate according to Wiki guidelines involving excessive citations—-to provide citations for each concert associated with each band in this list in question. For example, here are a handful of articles that provide evidence of a few bands (ZOX having opened for) on this list in question: http://www.pennyblackmusic.co.uk/magsitepages/Article/5942/Zox https://www.union.edu/news/stories/202010/they-played-here-live-music-union http://www.lawrence.com/events/2006/oct/04/flogging-molly-zox-bedouin-soundclash/?et=15946 https://www.punknews.org/article/27671/tours-streetlight-manifesto-zox-dan-potthast-usa https://www.newtownbee.com/04302004/if-youd-like-to-check-out-one-of-the-bands-that-will-be-at-ozzfest-this-s/ http://www.rirocks.net/Bands/zox.htm
I could keeping listing, as there is evidence online, from firsthand news articles or concert listings, of every band in this list.
The inline citation, helpful as it is, is actually not required in this case according to Wiki guidelines, as the list of bands in question is not any of the following: A direct quotation, a statement that has been challenged, a statement that is believed is likely to be challenged, or contentious material about living persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations
Further, “the Good Article criteria merely state that inline citations are required for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons”.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria This list does not fall into those categories.
In a more general sense, musical acts that another musical act have opened for do not require inline citations, as they are deemed general knowledge to the music-going public. As cases in point, none of the following opening acts mentioned below have citations (its possible to find hundreds if not thousands of un-cited Wiki entries just like these):
Foo Fighters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_Fighters “Foo Fighters undertook their first major tour in the spring of 1995, opening for Mike Watt.”
The Who https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who “This included a return visit to the Isle of Wight Festival (at the Seaclose Park in Newport) on the 11 June opening date.”
Aerosmith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosmith “These shows were opened by Joan Jett.”
Aerosmith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosmith "Other collaborations, either by individual members of the band or by Aerosmith as a whole, have included Alice Cooper on his Trash album, Guns N' Roses (who opened for Aerosmith during their 1988 tour and had covered "Mama Kin" on their first release) and B'z."
In sum, even though citations (which are readily found online) are not required for this list of bands in question, the single citation listed is sufficient to provide verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.179.110 (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a great breakdown! :-) If you want citations for the approx 42 bands listed here, we can provide press clipping URLs, however this would clearly represent Citation Overkill, in turn causing a credibility risk, according to Wiki Guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_overkill Specifically, 42 citation would represent "misuse to prove an obvious point, and needless repetition." For example, the band, signed to a major record label and booking agency, played 250 shows per year for 10 years--so it would be expected that they would have opened for these types and quantity of acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Sea (talk • contribs) 19:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited M Jonathan Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Wanted to find out what trivial classifications are in each edit because I realized that you deleted a section of some updates we are conducting on African Athlete and what they are doing outside of the continent after their life as competitors. Advice. Kakra Payin (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Great, I am learning how to work on the athletes pages on Wikipedia to help clean up African profiles and information on Wikipedia. There are a lot of information on Wikipedia about Africans that are organized by people with limited reference details about Africans since they don’t even know where to look for such information. I am trying to learn more about Wikipedia in the process as well. Kakra Payin (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Please delete All tags Andrew maven (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Melcous - thanks for your feedback. I noticed your note saying you edited because some references were not legitimate, and I will go ahead and double check them. But I noticed you deleted the entire additional content, including the legitimate info with correct references. Just to clarify: did you delete the entire thing based on a few poor references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolmanj (talk • contribs) 07:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Melcous, I want to follow-up re your guidance to shift to prose format on Marver_Bernstein#Academics -- certainly not difficult to execute but as I’m working toward being able to advise other new editors as well, would you happen to know of or have a favorite exemplar for comparison? (BTW, I’m still working to rediscover the reference as it came from an obscure archive.) Would you similarly advise prose for Marver_Bernstein#Memorials speakers' list? As I note in-line, the symposium speakers’ list makes more sense to eventually exist on a page for the symposium itself. The current content inclusion here is intended only as a transitional step, giving other editors a chance to infill, enhance, and move. So I'd be interested, from a process standpoint, of how that ties to current formatting choices. Many thanks for your feedback and improvements. Zatsugaku (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Robert Obojski page was created by me for Bob. He was a neighbor and close friend. I was his care giver. I was his healthcare proxy and followed family instructions to remove life support. I arranged his funeral. GustavM (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Melcous,
this page is in the process of being co-created with much love and diligence by some of Mary Fulkerson O'Donnell's closest professional collaborators, students, etc. As such it represents a legacy of someone who has been instrumental for contemporary dance in Europe. We are doing this by following the basic idea of Wikipedia. We did not attack anyone or make anyone look bad. A lot of data had been carefully assembled by today, plenty of independent sources quoted.
Can you please state on what base you interfered in this process, without any previous statement or communication, no marking in advance which you could have done as a gatekeeper, to properly state your objections and give us time to learn?
Of course erring is humane, so if there was a mistake, so be it, let's correct it together.
Sincerely,
Thomas_Kortvelyessy
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.157.130.6 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Apologies that the page I created (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilok_Chandra_Goel) appeared like a resume. I have made some edits and request you to please have a look and remove the like resume tag. If you still feel it is not neutral enough, could you please make some suggestions. Having looked at many other living people wiki pages, I find this page fairly neutral now.
I have also added more relevant categories to this article. Please amend this tag too if this is up to your satisfaction. Thank you for keeping tabs on Wiki content. Best wishes, Batsman2 (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Melcous: thanks for pointing me to the policy on credits, particularly regards images in the info box. Actually hadn't read that before. So, it's good there's no credit there. Is it okay to have a credit in a caption when an image is used in the body of an article?The Little Platoon (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Melcous, thank you for leaving your message on my talk page. Apologies for my recent edits that were not relavant. Thank you. Arun prasad pandurangan (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Could you help me by any chance please, publishing the page I made, it just says draft and I don’t know how to publish it. Thanks so much Derrick roper (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Melcous, I reverted the COI editor's addition of badly sourced promotional material to ZOX. I'm not sure if any friendly admins are watching your page, but if they are, :user:Accurate Sea needs a cooling off block for edit warring, using Wikipedia for promotion and refusing to understand our rule on COI and sharing accounts. Or perhaps just a pBlock for ZOX would do it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
We appreciate your attention to this page. Please note that no facts in the posting are "promotional" in nature -- they are historical, evidence-based details. As stated prior, if you feel 41 citations for the band list would be necessary, they all can be provided. (As explained in Melcous' Talk, however, this is not necessary within the rules of Wiki.) In terms of edit warring, it goes both ways, remember! All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Sea (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Melcous,
I am trying to respond to a message that left on my page. I am not getting paid for my efforts although I do know the person I wrote the article about. I just believe that she should be known within the database. I am new to this so don't know how to do a lot of things but I feel very attacked by this whole thing when I haven't tried to anything with malice or for personal gain. I especially didn't appreciate the words of the user Deb who I feel has attacked my charter and made assumptions about me which are untrue. I would really appreciate it if we could work this whole think out and my work could be restored.
Many thanks, Emma Dil (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eva Sajovic, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Sajovic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Melcous, I originally published the Draft:Berkshire Grey article, but it was moved to Articles for Creation due to a conflict of interest. It has remained in Articles for Creation unreviewed for the past few months. Are you able to review the draft again for it to be published in article space? If not, could you point me to someone who may be able to help get the review process underway? Thank you. Toddlute (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Melcous,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your unfailing discernment and intelligence, not to mention willingness to assist. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC) |
I have just noticed that you have undone some recent edits to my profile. These are all factually correct and important. Do I really have to find someone else to paste them in on my behalf?! RachelSkinner (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() Everything is Going to be Alright, Martin Creed, 2015.
|
![]() |
Social Enterprise vs. Actress |
Hi Melcous! Just wondering why you keep reverting Nanette Medved Po's article to highlight her being an actress vs. someone wanting to talk about her social enterprises. I think all the updates being made reflect accurate information about her because most recent articles really discuss her passion for her social enterprises. Fuegoph (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC) |
I note you've been doing some great editing on a page I created. Can I ask your opinion on referencing a source? This link offers primary sources into "Graham Hill (theologian)" connections, roles, and activities with major universities, colleges, and organisations. In one sense, it is a good source of primary data from representatives from 20+ institutions. But, because it is located at the academic centre directed by the subject, do you think it's a bit compromised or promotional? What do you think about this use of this source? Appreciate your advice.
TrekMaster1900 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I was a bit perplexed. It could be argued that they are independent, external references to the impact of the subject's work; but because they are grouped on the website of the subject's research centre, there's a conflict of interest here that should be avoided in referencing these. They are no longer independent and third party. Appreciate your advice. Steep learning curve!
TrekMaster1900 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
What’s the best way to find pages that need copy editing? Got some time on my hands, so I’m keen. Thanks TrekMaster1900 (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! TrekMaster1900 (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Why did you remove Brenda Allison She was the only black person on the list. Ankar doesn't have more clout. Have you read the Wikipedia racial bias report? Brenda All (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm here by an administrator invite. Human magnet Anun Raikar Wikipedia page has lifted 7 paragraphs and a 7 line quotation from an article in India Today about him. You possibly worry about that. Brenda All (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I saw your note on missing internal references for the Tsnungwe entry. I have added references. Can you give feedback? If it looks okay, please remove the caution at top of page about original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny ammon (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I saw that you made an edit to the page and I was wondering if you'd think it would be worth nominating it for deletion. The sources seem to have been mainly promotional ones rather than actual independent secondary sources and the page seems to have major COI issues. What are your thoughts? Sdrqaz (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ALL of my "notable collaborations" are 100% VERIFIABLE WITH THE ARTISTS THEMSELVES Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) I've been a professional performing and studio musician since 1995, well before the internet automatically documented everything (as well as in many cases, I was part of a undocumented live performance, or I was credited only on the "hard copies" of the releases (liner notes inside records, CDs, etc) so for these reasons there may not be easily accessible (or any!) up-to-date hyperlinks for all my citations- however, this obviously doesn't necessarily mean they didn't happen! and again, they ALL did. (also, I'm not sure why you would've added "name dropping" to your edit, which besides being factually wrong, was also a little (needlessly) rude.) this page obviously functions as an online resume/ resource so of course I would include the names of all the artists I've worked for/ recorded with/ played with.Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)timo ellisTimoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Timoellismusic (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ok- the truth is that until now I actually didn't understand how Wikipedia works, so in that context I now understand the need/ protocol for 100% validation, as well as the need to eliminate any COI's, so I'll immediately stop this "edit war". however that said, I'm not sure how that justifies the deletion of nearly all of my introductory paragraph just now, now made dreadfully out of date, + which not only did I not write originally, but also didn't edit whatsoever recently (plus, IMO it's not necessary for you to be (palpably) snarky + condescending about this, either.)
Thanks so much for this thoughtful response, and your apology- I really appreciate it- one general thing I might add is that I’d imagine that this kind of thing can get a little sensitive for some independent artists (as it just did for me), considering that the current level that everything needs to be rigorously verified at, may not just be understood as a forgone conclusion…+ especially with content created prior to the year 2000, which in the case with some of my work, may not be verifiable using today’s standards. in other words technically in many of these cases there unfortunately may not actually be Wikipedia-level “proof” available…which IMO, in our current professional media landscape (+ one driven entirely by optics) by default "verification privileges" younger people, whose professional (and personal) lives (relative to older people) have been exhaustively documented. anyway, food for thought. PEACE / Timoellismusic (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Timo
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Keep up the good work! Kj cheetham (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
I did not put the original link in that article. I am not the actual pod awful. I reverted the other user's edit because they removed it for a personal reason. The user Catfights1 is someone who has issued death threats to the host of Pod Awful, and removed the reference to the show because of their personal beef. I simply restored the page to how it was for the past few years. Revert the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podawful (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
did not add the link to begin with, it was on there for years. despite the issue with my username there is no reason to disallow the edit because the removal of the original link from years ago was what was done in bad faith. This is clear from the notes in the edit history. I'll change my username, you fix your reversal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podawful (talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Why are you publishing profiles for individuals without authorisation? Your profiles are sensational at best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.152.57 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I wonder which one of the six socks who edited Alan Mikhail decided that 22 sources at the end of one sentence was a good idea. I mean, why not 40 at that point? Possibly (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Melcous. Thank you for getting in touch. I don't have an external relationship with the organization. In addition to avoiding any mistakes and conflicts, what should I do?
Regards, Hansaz--Hansaz (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Melcous,
Background
I have great interest in metamorphic testing (MT). I helped edit the Wikipedia page several years ago. Originally, many of the references that I cited were by Australian authors. According to a survey published in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, the Australians have published > 30% of the MT papers. Yet, almost all my citations involving Australian authors were immediately deleted by other editors. I had no time and energy to continue with the edit war. Hence, when I created my first Wikipedia page, I chose to portray T.H. Tse, who is the most prolific author in MT outside of Australia. In fact, I was planning to create Wiki pages for three Australian authors, but because of the edit war, I had to shelve the idea. Thus, the article for Tse is also my only Wikipedia page. This causes serious suspicion by other editors, who have made many attempts to find fault with my editing. It is quite exhausting to show my honesty repeatedly. Please excuse me if I appear to be defensive.
Tse as the Matchmaker for the $140 Million Donations to The University of Hong Kong
(1) On 29 January 2020, I wrote that “Tse served as the matchmaker of a $100 million donation to The University of Hong Kong”.
(2) On the same day, an editor undid the revision, claiming that “there is nothing in the sources that says he was the ‘matchmaker’; it just says that the two of them got together and discussed it”.
(3) On 30 January 2020, I rewrote the sentence as “Tse sparked the idea to the generous donor Mrs May Tam for a $100 million gift to The University of Hong Kong” according to the wording in the secondary source. This was apparently well accepted. A year came by without controversy.
(4) On 18 December 2020, I updated the amount of donations to $140 million.
(5) On 10 January 2021, you rewrote the sentence as “Tse's childhood friend May Tam undated $140 million to The University of Hong Kong”. Thus, the contribution by Tse was ignored.
(6) On 11 January 2021, I quoted the sentence “The idea for the generous donation came when Mrs May Tam reconnected with Professor T.H. Tse ... at a class reunion” from the secondary source, to inform readers about Tse’s contribution.
(7) On 12 January 2021, you deleted the quotation.
(8) On the same day, I explained that “We cannot simply write that Tse's friend made donations to a university. It does not make sense to readers why it should be stated in the Wikipedia entry.” I rewrote the sentence as “Tse ‘reconnected’ a childhood friend May Tam and ‘sparked’ donations of $140 million to The University of Hong Kong”.
(9) On the same day, you concluded that the whole paragraph “doesn’t really belong in his biography then”, and deleted it.
(10) On the same day, I appealed to you to “Please stop the edit war”, and undid the deletion.
(11) On the same day, you reverted my edit, and suggested that we “take it to the talk page”.
I do not want an innocent professor’s Wikipedia entry to be adversely affected by any misunderstanding between you and me. I sincerely hope that you appreciate the real situation. I am seeking your help to solve the issue amiably.
Laiwoonsiu (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Melcous. Thank you so much for helping me here. The Draft wrote neutrally with a reference link. It is published already but not submitted for review yet. Could you please guide me with the next steps? I really appreciate any help you can provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansaz (talk • contribs) 08:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Melcous. Thank you so much for helping me here. The Draft wrote neutrally with a reference link. It is published already but not submitted for review yet. Could you please guide me with the next steps? I really appreciate any help you can provide.--Hansaz (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you help me repair my page. I am a busy academic and I did my best but I cannot do better. Thank you. Edgar Pick132.66.237.205 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Melcous, thanks for helping. what did I do wrong? I don't want to repeat it. Was I editing an old page? I have that page "pinned" on Chrome - do the URLs change often? You said that category removal was for editors only - but I'm an editor and the category did not fit. David Gross is not an atheist, therefore he doesn't belong to Jewish Atheists. Martine. 23:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
OMG how silly of me! So glad you caught that! Thanks Melcous! Martine. 01:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
== David Gross - doctorates == and == Mark Bowick - citations == COI editors - how to offer revisions
Hi Melcous, I ran out of time Friday to do the citations. I plan on doing them today and tomorrow - hoping I'll find PR to substantiate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartineWhite (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Melcous, can you give me an example of how I would propose an edit (ie of the doctorates held by David Gross) on talk page, with a COI. I thought that having a COI attached to me was sufficient - but I need to add it when I propose a change on talk? What about minor edits, like commas or updating a family member? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartineWhite (talk • contribs) 22:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Melcous, I've suggested citations and revisions for Mark Bowick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Bowick?action=edit§ion=2 and for David Gross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Gross#ADDITIONAL_CITATIONS. Should I convert these revisions to "wiki-text?" or are they acceptable as listed. Any modifications I should make when suggesting revisions? Also, I read this on Wiki's COI page: "Making uncontroversial edits: Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits: repair broken links, and add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest So may I add / revise citations and bad links myself? Many thanks for your help, Martine Martine. 00:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Please download and study the independence of thought and scholarly intent of the citation before reverting from it, thank you (CJohnF (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)).
Understood but unnecessary. You have presumed I represent myself. But I represent a body of knowledge = Commercial Knowledge, as in the citation's title (CJohnF (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)).
Have you considered, and with respect, transcribing tacit knowledge requires a human intervention and humans have names. Commercial knowledge is tacit. It is not written down. My role has been to translate orally discussed information into a format that can be understood by others. I did so because I was asked to (by the US Department of Commerce). If this is a COI then no tacit knowledge could ever appear as a resource for anyone who hadn't heard it. I am simply the human vehicle through which this knowledge has passed. My interest is dissemination(CJohnF (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC))
Though annoying to you, articulating the situation you created for me has been useful (CJohnF (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
Hi Melcous - would you please let me know if there is any further action you need me to take regarding the edits made to the Laura Wasser page?OnTVinc (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Melcous, I noticed you have done some edits to the Alphacrucis page and was thinking that, if you have an interest in Christianity, Australian history or university education, you may be willing to look at this draft I created? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Denise_A._Austin_(professor)
I do have a conflict of interest as I am related to the subject but I believe I have noted that on my profile in the correct way, have written in a neutral way with lots of references to outside sources and am trying to go through the correct channel of getting someone not connected to approve the draft.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirimasuka (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I also think the title should be changed - there is no other Denise A. Austin, so it doesn't need the (professor) Thanks Melcous (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Melcous for your advice and for the editing you have done. I will make the changes you suggested and will work on finding more independent and third party sources. Wikirimasuka (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello. A while ago I came across the wikipedia article "Innovation economics" which is preceded by the banner "please help to improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style". This is what I hoped to do. The revision of such an article requires a lot of attention and time - i.e. one cannot do it in one shot -, because the way it is structured now leaves much to be desired (as witnessed by the initial banner) and innovation economics is a vast field. The article, as it stands, gives the impression that innovation economics begins with Joseph Schumpeter which is not true, as explicit analyses concerned with innovation were contained in Classical economists' books (e.g. Adam Smith 1776; Charles Babbage 1832; Karl Marx 1867). I added many contents, building around what was already existing. I did not delete a single word of what was already there - even though there are some ideas, quotes, references and names that many competent scholars studying innovation would find out of context. Today I wanted to continue the job, but I found that all my additions (about 7,000 bytes) had been undone by Melcous – who is endowed with “rollback rights”. Obviously if such an authority considers the article as it stands preferable to the one I was writing I have nothing to complain. Maybe it would have been worthwhile to leave in the article at least some minor improvements, e.g. at the very beginning of the article, where one reads that "Innovation is a growing economic theory" while it would be appropriate to say that "Innovation economics is a growing branch of economic theory" (mutatis mutandis, would one define the study of nuclear energy a “growing physics”?). Regards. Stirner61 151.50.48.128 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I saw you reverted my edit to AOC, I understand this is a contentious topic/figure and many decisions should be made on the talk page. I am only inquiring here as to some of the incidentals you mentioned. My use of "emotional" was used in the source[1] Since I was including a direct quote in the same sentence I placed that citation at the end of the sentence, though I now notice since the Citation to the Washington Post (i chose not to delete the prior editor's citation) preceded it that may have caused confusion. I overlooked that but is it really POV to call a live video of a person crying "emotional"? The word has been very widely used by proper sources to describe that video. I'm still fairly new here and am certainly open to being wrong though.
A congresswoman's experience/response to the most open and violent assault on congress since 1814 may not be where we should minimize detail. More should be added, incl the widely made accusation that she distorted her experience, a claim went well beyond the fringe Not all attacks on AOC or any politician belong on wiki, this was a major event in her career and has received a very high level of coverageplus in the same viral video she discloses she was a victim of sexual assault it seems this is very much an event that merits particular emphasis-especially considering the length of emphasis given to when a congressman yelled b*** at her.OgamD218 (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
References
You need to add North America after United States. 23.251.2.24 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking back through the history of this page, it is clear that you have focused a great deal of your personal attention on this particular page. You continually revert edits, demand citations for simple and ordinary matters and keep reducing the size and scope of information about this individual. Now you have tagged it as not being a notable subject although it clearly meets the guidelines for such as both a published author, award winning journalist and famous gay activist. The pattern here appears to have an element of personal dislike for the individual or subject matter. This is an opening dialogue as per Wiki guidelines before a complaint is filed and a review of your edits requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:2012:35CE:1224:43BB (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Why was this completely unrelated link to the Capital attacks added to this comment? I did not put it there and it has no relevance whatsoever to the matter at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:2012:35CE:1224:43BB (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No doubt it is on your watchlist as the history shows that often within minutes of an edit to the page you respond. But you do not simply review the changes just made, you take the opportunity to make extensive changes of your own at that time, usually cutting larger and larger chunks. Like today, you removed his journalism award, which was in fact published in numerous places around the world and is a documented fact. As he was the only journalist in Canada to have won this prestigious award at the time, and under the circumstances he did is only one element of his clear eligibility. This now helps your case he doesn't meet that criteria as things such as winning major awards are a factor. Being an internationally best-selling author is an another example of his eligibility, which has been listed there for many many years and you did not challenge. As is the fact that he was named amongst the top newsmakers of the year at the end of 1995 for both his journalism and the award he won. That same article from the Globe and Mail (one of Canada's most respected national newspapers) mentions his award, but you ignore it and delete mention of the award because you claim another source inaccurate. As you chip away at removing the history, you slowly erode the evidence of his eligibility.
As much of this material is now quite old and was placed here long ago, it is harder and harder to find it in a simple Google search and you are burying his history and putting people in the position of having to work harder to prove things that were previously available and established- and that at an earlier time you even approved yourself. You also arbitrarily decide what stays and what goes regardless of proper and verifiable sourcing. For example, from the last two lines quoted from the same source, you leave one line and remove the second. The second happens to talk about his history of bisexuality and polyamory. You have previously removed properly sourced material on numerous other occasions, seemingly simply because you do not like it. Whether you like this man, or his history does not permit you to decide what details of his life get told and those which get buried. The fact that in raising this issue with you, you respond by immediately further removing documented elements of his history and attacking this individual even more reveals your clear bias. You obviously have had this page on your "watchlist" for a long time and many things that you later changed were there before you appear on the list of editors and you did not remove it until much later. And why only now, after all this time and all your deletions of his many accomplishments, do you now suggest the page be removed?
You have actually made it easy to demonstrate your history of bias and edit warring, a rule which was designed to protect against random members of the public who disagree, and likely not from one of their own editors who may commit such an offence. Since you not only will not cease your campaign or demonstrate a willingness for meaningful discussion, I now have no choice but to escalate this and complain to your superiors. It will be easy in some many cases by examine your history of arbitrary and capricious editing as it is well documented in the record, which, thankfully, you cannot edit out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is a great example of your selective editing:
This article mentions in the Globe and Mail that Joseph Couture had previously won this award before author Stephen Williams and that such awards are typically only given to journalists living under dictatorships. You claim to have checked this information but it only took a quick check to prove this point as it is so well documented. This award, the circumstances, the high level of publicity around it are all evidence of his notability. Yet you continue to chip away at it. You are well aware that as time goes by more and more things slip behind pay-walls and can no longer be easily accessed by the public and only now make changes that are increasingly difficult to reverse, but easy for you delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Case in point, that link to the article with the headline that Stephen Williams won the same award is no longer found on the web, possibly because the paper is now defunct. Did you simply read the headline and conclude because it only mentions Williams that it had nothing to do with this author? As you can see from the still available link to the Globe, Couture is mentioned as having won it first. So if you read the actual article, or did your own research, you would have known that. But I suggest you are not looking for what you do not want to find. The link to the journalism committee report documenting the harassment of Couture is still active and is evidence again you choose to ignore. On and on it goes, I will be reporting you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Another important item deleted earlier was the fact that he was nominated repeatedly by his colleagues for awards in investigative journalism. Again, many of these links are gone. But this one remains:
ps://caj.ca/blog/congratulations-caj-awards-finalists-2015
I could just go on with this, but I think you should be getting the picture by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
== Re ==Joseph Couture
I'm sorry if this appears in the wrong place, but I am hitting the "talk" button and don't know how or why it ends up where it does. You might notice that I did provide you an additional references proving that Couture won this award as well as other evidence about several other matters. Yet you did not restore it or respond to those other concerns at all. I do not think that I should undo these changes as you are the one with the authority of the editor and you are the one who removed them. You might notice that another editor reviewed the same material and commented that the article does say he won the award, contrary to what you say you saw. I do not feel my comments are either personal or intemperate, merely frustrated because it certainly appears from this end that it is very easy for an editor to delete something and nearly impossible for an ordinary person to do anything about it, regardless of the evidence. So my perspective is that I am merely stating the way it is. The other side of not being too harsh in criticism is not being too sensitive in receiving it. It is not personal to me as I do not know you and have no opinion of you as a person, only your work.
I simply do not feel you have addressed my concerns adequately or fairly. However, I give up. It is not my problem personally and at this point the whole world can see that we have entered an era of unprecedented arbitrary censorship. People are taking about it everywhere, while the censors play whack-a-mole and censor their talk of censorship. While we cannot do anything about it, don't think for a moment that the people aren't aware of it and that your credibility has evaporated at the same pace as our freedom of speech and thought. You can now fact check that opinion and label it "false and misleading" and delete it.
Your IP friend above has pasted the entirety of the above to ANI. Link. Possibly (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to get this page deleted as soon as possible but nothing seems to work.50.54.143.3 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)king.parker3
Melcous, is it summer down where you are? There is literally a metre of snow in my backyard. Hope all is well. Possibly (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Melcous - you sent me a message about conflict of interest editing. I'm not sure if this is right place to write back to you. In any case, I recently went to a movie theater. It's the first time since covid started. I ended up watching Adverse and I am obsessed with finding out more information about the creative team behind it. In doing research I noticed some things that needed updating on the wiki site. I also noticed that there isn't a page for the other main producer but I don't think I'm qualified for starting a wiki page for someone. I can barely do edits without getting flagged.
Anyway, liking someones work makes me research them and then want others to know the info that I have found by updating the wiki page. I don't think that it means there is a COI.
Please help me get better at this wiki site. It's so very confusing.
thanks
Mona1975 (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Melcous - thank you so much for the reply. I will definitely check out teahouse and Wikipedia:ADVENTURE I didn't know that I could save a draft draft for other editors to help. That is very cool. I'm going to look into that for sure.
In regard to your question about my response in 2007. I think there is a typo in my message. I meant to say that I am a Marla. Meaning that my given name is Marla. It's not a common name and people often call me Maria. Even my own Mother would pronounce my name wrong with her accent and I moaned about it so much growing up that I got the nickname Mona, henceforth my username. In any case, I'm always acutely aware of other people with the name Marla. And because I had a little crush on Thomas when he played Kevin Myers in American Pie, I knew that his mom's name was Marla. So when I saw her referred to as Karen on wiki I just had to change it because I AM A MARLA too! In looking back at how I wrote that, I obviously didn't go into a deep explanation of it. And I definetly didn't explain myself properly. Sorry for the confusion. Should I go and adjust my first edit? to explain more?
Thank you so much for your help.
Mona1975 (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow I'm just realizing now that I'm talking to 2 people. Apologies for that. Sorry for the confusion. I went to the theater to see Thomas Nicholas' new movie Adverse. I am an avid fan of him and I know that he has worked with Brian Metcalf on a few movies. but I don't really like horror movies but now that I have seen the new movie, which is the same creative team... my opinion has changed. So If you look in my recent history I have made some edits on Brian Metcalf's page too. In fact there seems to be a similar situation with his page from back in 2018. In any case, I'm starting to feel a little embarrassed about my fan girl feelings now. I really do enjoy contributing to these few pages... and as you can see, I only just learned today that I could create a draft. I feel pretty silly for not knowing that I could do that. And the last thing I want to do is anything wrong. Sorry for all the trouble and thank you for all the help.
Mona1975 (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand. I don't know how to use the talk pages. For instance there was another user who deleted Thomas Nicholas children's names after I found articles on People Magazine that included their names. And his son is starring a new movie. A huge movie directed by M Night. Nolan River's name was just in Rolling Stone [1] If you watched the super bowl then you and 100M other people saw his son. So I reached out to that person and asked them why they chose to do that ... and they deleted my question... on a talk page.
I guess I'm just confused. How do you decide what pages to edit? Contributors don't get paid. so if the information I post is validated by an article. how can that be disputed? What is the purpose of Wikipedia if we can’t update accurate information? And what is the big deal because I find and cite articles to prove what I'm typing.
I'm happy to do drafts. But talk pages that get deleted seems like your some sort of gate keeper that gets to let information on a person who's work I enjoy can be wrong? I mean sure why not. What does it matter if his mom's name is wrong... who cares right? it was wrong for years. And I waited for someone to correct it... There is no clear instruction to make drafts or suggestions. Just an edit button for anyone to do.
And if my first message was a typo why didn't someone cite me as a COI in 2007. before I made 45 edits. Shoot why don't you just delete me and call his mom Karen?
And do you really think that his 64 year old mother is awake at 2am typing messages to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona1975 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Melcous, Thank you for your recent edit to the page of Ibrahima Soce Fall(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahima_Soc%C3%A9_Fall). I am requesting if you can review the page again and see if there are any other issues. I am new to Wikipedia and still getting up to speed with the guidelines that at times take a bit of time to understand. So most of the time I am learning along the way. Sincerely Victor Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor.Wade.Oloo (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |