Jump to content

User talk:Melcous/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Kantilal Mardia

Hi sir, you have revert the information on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantilal_Mardia about his book. I have followed the suggestions provided by AngusWOOF for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Scientific_Foundations_of_Jainism the new Wikipedia page for the book. Kindly guide here. Thank you. --Vmaske (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Vmaske, the book is still there on the list of works, but yes I removed the description both because it does not belong in that kind of list, and because it read as promotional of the book. Thank you for your message, but a couple of things you should be aware of:
  • New messages on a talk page should go at the bottom, after all the current messages, not above them like this, as is stated at the very top of this page.
  • Please do not assume that all other wikipedia editors are male. Melcous (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Jeremy Farrar

You have reverted my edits to the article on Jeremy Farrar twice now. Why do you feel it's important for the article to mention, that Farrar was a director, when the bullying happened? It's a fact he was a director, is it not? 81.104.142.198 (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits because the source you have added does not mention Farrar. A source needs to actually verify information in order for it to be included in an article. Melcous (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

African Queens and Women Cultural Leaders Network

A bit rich of you to allege hounding after you went through every article I have made major contributions to, to simply delete the content I had added. You keep asking editors to assume good faith, but your actions fall well short of the ordinary meaning of good faith. JJCaesar (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks "B0B" always appreciate your diligence. Probably not worth the argument, but User:JJCaesar, I edited precisely three articles you had made contributions to, two of which were the subject of discussion at noticeboards, and yes, one I went to myself because it had the same kind of problematic editing as you were warned about elsewhere. Not quite the same thing. It's not the following that is the problem, as stated elsewhere, I actually appreciated one of your other edits on a page I had previously edited, its the nature of the edit and the kind of point it appeared to be trying to make. Melcous (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, not actually bogus

But it was about a non notable dog [2]. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah thanks, that will teach me for not paying close enough attention :) Cheers Melcous (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

The Editor's Barnstar
For wading into Fabrizio Boccardi and figuring out which 92 of the 314 citations to keep! MB 21:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you MB - I'm not sure that I've done an amazing job, and the article needs some more time and effort to sort through all the issues, but appreciate the encouragement! Melcous (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconsidering reversal

Hi, please have a look at my comment. Bastiaan Veelo (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Which policy ?

Hello Melcous, we've conversed before. I see that you have returned to List of Old Boys of St Joseph's College, Hunters Hill and (amongst other deletions) have now deleted fourteen Australian national representative rugby union players on the basis they have no wikipedia article. This is not a list of Old Boys who have WP articles, it is a list of notable Old Boys. There is no question under WP guidelines that national representative sportspeople are notable. Again I ask you, what policy requires that notable entrants on a list, whose notability is evidenced by an in-line citation, can only be on that list if they have a WP article ? Rgds -Sticks66 11:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

I think there is already consensus on the talk page. Multiple people raised the same issue as I have. ElsevierAnatomy (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Um ElsevierAnatomy, on the current talk page there is one comment by an IP editor in January with no follow up discussion. I can't see anything about it in the archives of that talk page, although I acknowledge that may because I don't know how to find it. But nor can I see anywhere that you have raised the question or anything else on the talk page ever. Melcous (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Page Matthew Nelson

Hello Melcous,

Thanks for all the articles you have added to Wikipedia. I am writing regarding your deletion of the page of musician Matthew Nelson. He is an accomplished musician, producer, a member of RED37, a session player on bass guitar for various award shows such as the American Music Awards, The Grammys etc, a songwriter and producer and is personally deeply hurt by your deletion of all his accomplishments.

I understand that he is ALSO one half of the band Nelson, but that project does not encompass his solo career and projects.

Can you tell me how this happened? And what process we would go through to have this page restored as it brings him many leads for work from around the world and he has heard from 2 people this week that they could not find him on Wikipedia and thus it has cost his projects, from which he supports his family.

Thank you for your consideration. Lucyconlon (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)LucyConlon lucy@mccartney.com (if you could email me that would be better)

Hi Lucyconlon and thanks for your message. I redirected the page to Nelson (band) after a proposal was made six months ago to merge the articles. The only other editor who commented, Walter Görlitz, supported the proposal, and as no objections had been raised after six months, I moved the article. The page Matthew Nelson still exists, but it redirects to the band article. If you would like to propose a separate article be created again, you are welcome to do so using the talk page. However, I would add a couple of words of caution:
  1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. It does not exist to bring work to the subject of the article - they can use their own website to do that - nor is it about their own feelings about their accomplishments.
  2. You have appear to have a conflict of interest regarding this topic and so need to be careful to abide by the relevant guidelines and policies, including making suggestions on the talk page rather than editing the article yourself. I would also suggest you carefully read WP:PAID and make a clear declaration on your user page if this applies to you.
  3. Finally, the reason the merge proposal was made and followed up on was that the content on the three articles was substantially the same and thus did not verify independent notability for the two brothers themselves. SO in order to suggest such an individual article be recreated, you would need to provide reliable, independent, secondary sources to support such a proposal.

Thank you Melcous (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Lucyconlon I see that you did not wait for the 38 minutes it took me to reply to you (which is actually very quick around here, considering we are probably in very different time zones) but moved the articles back. This has been reverted by Walter Görlitz. Please slow down, take the time to read the linked guidelines, ask questions here or on the talk page, and make suggestions there so that we can reach consensus, which is a core policy as to how wikipedia works. Thank you Melcous (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I have a question. What makes you and Walter the only decision makers around here? Lucyconlon (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)lucyconlon

Nothing, we are clearly not the only decision makers. But we are trying to follow the policies and guidelines that the volunteer community has set up to make things work here. I suggest you do the same. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@Lucyconlon: I was checking your edits and saw this here, so I'll reply: we're not the only decision makers around here. Feel free to discuss this using one of the methods discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or even complain about us at a Wikipedia:Village pump forum. I edit and watch a lot of music articles and know when I see problems. Melcous doesn't appear to be a frequent editor of pages I have edited, so I won't offer an opinion but with over 65,000 edits on Wikipedi, it seems that Melcous is sufficiently capable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Peris Tobiko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Christian
Victoria Kalima (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Christian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Queries on Adedayo Ojo's Wikipedia Page

Dear Melcous,

Thanks for your welcome message. I also got your feedback as regards my connection with AZwealth, and I admit that I am connected to AZwealth. We actually both work in the same organisation and were tasked with resolving the queries on the CEO's page. However, efforts to resolve these queries have only proved abortive. While trying to figure out why the queries were always returned to the page after several edits, I had to review Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies more objectively, and it was then I realised that the CEO's Wikipedia page may have only passed one (that of "receiving significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject") out of the four guidelines. As it stands, I need to know if the above submission about the profile page is actually valid as I need to give feedback as to whether or not the page should exist in the first place. I will appreciate your candid and ethical recommendation.

Thank you, Warm regards. Gla.Onpoint (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Gla.Onpoint. As you work for the organisation, you should read WP:PAID and make sure to abide by it. This also raises questions about the article, as if it has been created and/or significantly edited by employees or others with a financial stake and this has not been declared, it could be considered undisclosed paid editing which is a problem here.
This does mean that you should not be editing the article directly, but instead are encourage to suggest changes on its talk page. If you think there are other independent sources that cover Ojo you should point them out there.
As to your question about notability, I would agree with you that it may be that Ojo does not meet the notability guidelines. I'm not sure that there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject at the moment. One option is for an independent editor such as myself to nominate the article for deletion in which case other editors can assess whether they think it is notable or not, and you are welcome to participate in the discussion. Another option if you agree that it is not notable, is that one of the article's creators or the subject of the article can request it be deleted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Melcous, You are welcome and thanks a lot for taking out time to provide me with the above detailed explanation and recommendations. Given the state of things, I would gladly go with your first option as you help nominate the article for deletion. Warm regards, Gla.Onpoint Gla.Onpoint (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sallie Foley

You keep reverting my updates to Sallie Foley back to a significantly outdated version. I have worked with her directly for 14 years so there does not exist a more accurate source than what I can provide. She provided me this information directly. There are no public citations available to reflect changes in her employment/retirement status. The page in its current form is outdated and incorrect. Nela9094 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Nela9094. As the message on your talk page says, all content in wikipedia needs to be sourced to reliable independent secondary sources. If no such sources exist, then the content should not be included here. Including information obtained directly from the subject of the article is considered original research which wikipedia does not allow as it cannot be verified. You should also read the conflict of interest policy and be careful to abide by it. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The subject's page in its current iteration is factually incorrect. The changes I made were fully consistent with the subject's biography published on her professional website which was already cited in her Wiki as an external link. If my conflict of interest is grounds for precluding me from making Wiki changes (and I fully understand why these policies are in place), I hope someone will verify her external biography and make the changes. Perhaps the following links will assist. Thank you. https://www.salliefoley.com/about https://ssw.umich.edu/news/articles/2018/04/19/57822-sallie-foley-awarded-ssw-2018-distinguished-lecturer-award https://www.aasect.org/member-spotlight-sallie-foley http://www.isna.org/about/foley https://www.guilford.com/books/Sex-Matters-for-Women/Foley-Kope-Sugrue/9781609184698/authors https://www.aarp.org/entertainment/books/info-07-2010/modern_love.html Nela9094 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nela9094 - the best thing to do is propose changes on the article's talk page and if you can point out the content that is incorrect, what it should be replaced with, and the sources that demonstrate it, that would go a long way. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Just made that request on her talk page and added some sources. Hope someone can help. Thanks for guiding the way. Nela9094 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Melcous,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove the {{COI}} tag from Jonathan Mitchell (writer)

Hello,

I paid an editor to remove information which indicates that I have a COI with Jonathan Mitchell (writer). Therefore, I would like that tag removed.

Additionally, if you wish, please perform the edits I requested at Talk:Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#Requested_Edits_to_be_Made_(Part_3), since I have a COI. Only if someone else doesn't make those edits first, however.

Ylevental (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

ProProfs

Update: I added verifiable links, categories and linked ProProfs to the related articles in the Section "See Also". I described all the changes in the "Edit Summary" as you requested by Wikipedia rules. Now, it for at least deserves good evaluation. Please, do not revert it automatically as by Wikipedia criteria both the issues have been solved. With regard, RossK 17:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Ross kramerov I'm not sure why you bothered asking me when you made the same edit without waiting for a reply. You have misunderstood orphan issue, which is about links to the page not links from it, although this is technically met by the 'list of' article - but barely. The notability issue is about demonstrating that the company meets the WP:NCORP criteria, and in particular, there needs to be significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. At the moment the article's references are its own website, interview with its founders, reviews, blogs, press releases, and a couple of online magazine articles. It is really only the last of these that would count as reliable, independent, secondary coverage. So I would suggest it is not yet clear that notability has been demonstrated. Melcous (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this article is not bad in comparison with many other articles for the innovative companies. I can bring the same examples, if you wish from Wikipedia later. This company is well known in the area of e-learning.Most of the links are online sources (magazines included) but I will be working on additional links in the coming days to solidify the article. Just give me a bit of extra time.An sorry for miscommunication at the beginning.  With regard, RossK 22:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Ross kramerov, don't worry about the state of other articles - see WP:OSE. But yes, do work on improving the sources. Generally maintenance templates should be left on the article until the issues are resolved. Melcous (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

KJ Somaiya College of Engineering

This is with reference to your activities on the KJ Somaiya College of Engineering page. It is the college in the university that I studied in and made the edits. The articles mentioned included the list of activities and clubs that are an integral part of our institute. They were not advertising in any way whatsoever. While I understand your commitment to keeping Wikipedia an objective platform, I would like feedback on the article that we are talking about, so that we can together contribute to it. Thank you. Shukla ayush1 (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Shukla ayush1 the content was removed by a number of editors, including me, and reasons were explained in various edit summaries. Mostly, it was because the content was not sourced or sourced to places like facebook which is not ok; or contained trivial or non-notable information; or was the kind of promotional content that you would expect to be on the organisation's own website, not in an encyclopedia article, which is what this is. You are welcome to propose changes on the article's talk page, but you would need to reach consensus with a number of editors who have agreed that the content was inappropriate. Please also note that when you leave a message on any talk page, as you have done here, you should sign your post by including four tildes (~ this symbol) at the end. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


Thank You. I do realise what you mean now. I am working on the page again. But then, in case there are no sources for kinds of things like the college clubs, but are still an important part of the culture, what can be done? Looking forward to your suggestions. Shukla ayush1 (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Shukla ayush1, the goal of wikipedia is not to include what we might think is "an important part of the culture", but only what is notable and independently verifiable. If there are no sources, then the information should not be included. Perhaps it belongs on the organisation's own website, but it does not belong here. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Moriba Jah

I don't agree with the flags on this...please explain and provided criteria that satisfies this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.109.168 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

First things first, the article has been edited by someone whose user name matches the name of the subject of the article. If you are that person or are associated with that person, you should carefully read WP:COI, and also note WP:SOCK - i.e. if you have a registered account you should not also be editing an article while logged out to make it appear as if it is two different editors. Melcous (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Melcous...thanks for the feedback but what will satisfy this flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moribajah (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Reed Smith

Hello. Just to be clear, I had reversed your Reed Smith edit as having deleted the Johnstown Flood link, as then noted. I certainly agree that the other lists were superfluous. Deleting the flood connection, as you had, would be a disservice to history, in my opinion. I see that you adjusted this on the page. Thank you. Lindenfall (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Lindenfall thanks for your message. I still think there is nothing in the article itself to give any explanation as to why there is a link to a flood. If it is as pertinent as you say, then it should be mentioned and linked (with a reference) within the article itself. Thank you Melcous (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the page lacked adequate content, hence having added it (looks like) about four hours prior to your "I still think..." response. Your comment seems a touch odd, being as you had previously deleted the Johnstown Flood content yourself, in February, as unsourced... fair enough, except that the flood's page was linked (with sources) within the deleted entry, making it obvious that the information was not superfluous because the firm's founders were both members and the Club's attorneys, so eliminating it seems to be not the best choice. Later removing the "See Also" page link (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reed_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=899143591), which, again, obviously shows the significant connection when accessed, only further distanced the firm from its history. I did not know that any details had been previously removed when I added the information to Reed Smith (and I did not add it to the existing list of notable cases, where it had been prior, I now see, simply as being centuries apart). I hope that I have edited Reed Smith and related pages in such a way as to prevent further losses of valid information in future. Lindenfall (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Dmitry Volkov (businessman)

Hi @Melcous: Do you think this person is notable? scope_creepTalk 15:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the note about editing. I'll use the request edit moving forward for anything official with the Ayre group. Billbeatty10 (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Cheers Billbeatty10, appreciate it. Melcous (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

TASIS The American School in England

Hi Melcous,

I understand it can be a conflict of interest, but how do you update a Wikipedia page. The part I was updating on the website it was about our inspection organizations. ISI sent us a new inspection report. ISI, Independent Schools Inspectorate, told us to publish the report on our website and on all the channels.

Why do you want to have information about any organization that is not relevant or outdated? Part of the information I updated was from 2007. The UK Government forces us to publish always the latest report and that it was I was doing.

How can I update the information? You can verify that information is correct if you want.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks, Angel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malozanog (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Malozanog and thanks for your message. First, if you work for the school, then you should declare that you have a conflict of interest, and in particular if you are editing the article as part of your job, you must do so per WP:PAID, on your user page. Then, the best thing to do is suggest changes on the talk page, most easily done using the Template:Request edit. Please provide reliable sources to verify the information you are suggesting be added or changed. Thank you Melcous (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Melcous Thank you for your email. I just submitted a edit request as you suggested. Thank you. What is the next step after my edit request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malozanog (talk • contribs) 10:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Malozanog - the edit request goes on the article's talk page rather than on yours, so I have taken the liberty of moving it to there. Now you just need to wait until a neutral editor has time to review it. The edit request has flagged it, but as everyone here are volunteers, it may take a little bit of time, but that's ok, there is no reason to rush. As above, you should also make a declaration on your own user page as to your conflict of interest, and in particular respond to the question as to whether you are a paid editor. Thank you Melcous (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Melcous

I would like to know what I can do so the information on Wikipedia about my school is correct. I just talked to a prospective family who wanted to attend our school and she went to the Wikipedia to do some research about our school and she had the wrong information because the information is not correct on the Wikipedia. I requested for the information to be updated but no luck yet. Any advice? Thank you Malozanog(Malozanog (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC))

Malozanog, your edit request on the talk page on 12 June was responded to the same day by Spintendo who gave some specific points of what the problems with it were and what needed to be done. I suggest you respond to those. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

How to cite long lists of PhD students and postdocs?

Hello @Melcous:, thanks for your suggestion on Jane Clarke (scientist). As you suggested, I have removed the names of the students but this approach has the disadvantage that you end of up with long and ugly lists of references, for example:

“Clarke has trained and mentored more than 15 PhD students and postdoctoral researchers."

The number of PhD students is significant and need to be properly cited. In some cases, linking to the primary sources (the actual PhD theses) has the benefit of providing links to open access Open access icon material, where the journal evidence may be locked behind a paywall Closed access icon. The titles of the theses also give useful context about the broader research of the scientist too. So this is why I'd orginally put the names of the students in. Although the students are not notable (they probably don't merit inclusion in the infobox as doctoral_student), putting their names in the body of the article breaks up the references. It also has the advantage that it gives them credit too, as it is usually the armies of PhD students and postdocs that actually do most Professors work for them, under their direction. So, my question is, how do you think long lists of PhD students and postdocs should be cited in biographies such as Jane Clarke's? Duncan.Hull (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan.Hull, I agree that this is problematic, both in the way that it looks but also in the fact that these are still primary sources. The focus is on the subject of the article, not their students, so if the key point is that they have supervised a significant number of doctoral students, then the source shouldn't be a list of those students and their theses, surely it should be a secondary source that states that they have supervised a significant number of students. If the key point is the research undertaken by those students, then again, I would argue it should be a secondary source that talks about the breadth of that research not a list of theses. If those kinds of source don't exist, then the content doesn't belong in the article. Something like the example here also starts to look like original research where we as editors are citing the theses in order to make the point that number or breadth of students/research is significant, rather than reporting a source that actually says that. On the infobox parameter, Template:Infobox academic is clear that this is only for students notable enough for their own wikipedia article. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Elsie Godwin's article

Hi, Thanks for the amazing work that you are doing on this platform. I noticed the article's name mentioned above and I am interested in reshaping it to meet our standard here. What do you think about it? Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Melcous,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catherine Gotani Hara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speaker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Lieve Fransen for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MB190417 (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting to undo the article.

Hello Melcous, I am working on article Rahat Indori, i have edited the article but the awards and honours section was removed by you. so i request you to check the official site [3] awards section, there you will find all the awards which i have mentioned on the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzk12345 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hzk12345, as I noted in the edit summary, a list on someone's own website is not an acceptable source for this kind of information. It needs to be sourced to reliable, independent, secondary sources. If these kinds of sources cannot be found, then the information should not be in the article. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok Thank you, I will work on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzk12345 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the sock club?

According to a (thankfully now banned) IP user, we're both sockpuppets. I never realized I was a sockpuppet either, maybe we should make a support group for other users who never realized that they're socks? creffett (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Creffett I was a *little* perplexed as to how you and I could both apparently be the same Indian man given our locations and editing history, but hey, it's a day that ends in y around here, so really, why was I surprised? Thanks for your work keeping this somewhat in check before the block was applied. Cheers. Melcous (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Creffett I guess I'm part of the club too! Will there be membership cards? Perhaps a secret handshake? :) I was a bit sad that ZZuuzz deleted the revisions from my talk page, I would have rather enjoyed reading the rant. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
BubbaJoe123456 I'm thinking a userbox at least - "This user is actually a deep-cover sockpuppet" or something like that (I'm not good at coming up with pithy lines, okay?). If I remember correctly, the rant was accusing you of being a particular person (I guess someone that this user has a personal vendetta with) and threatening a mix of legal action and generally ruining your life, bragging about how his family is more powerful than yours. creffett (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for suggestions on how to make "Backup" article less "incomprehensible"

On 9 July 2019 you added an {{Incomprehensible}} tag to the "Backup" article, in the midst of my ANI requesting Pi314m be restrained from what I consider destructive "merge-ins" of other articles to that and the "Outsourcing" article. That dispute has been resolved by Pi314m's tacitly agreeing not to do any editing (other than adding any History info he can find) to the "Enterprise client-server backup" article, which I had created in June 2019 by splitting off the last 2.25 pages of the "Backup" article. I am now inviting you to add comment(s) to the "Backup" article's talk page, suggesting how it might be made less "incomprehensible".

To bring you up to speed, you should be aware that you won't hurt my feelings by criticizing the article as it now stands—because I only did corrective edits to two sections of it. AFAICT the article was basically written between 2006 and 2010, and was a poster-child example of the old-style-WP "wisdom of the IT community" with very few references. Other than my modernizing the "Storage media" subsection, the only edits I've done to the article as it stands have been to correct the "external and internal merge-ins" Pi314m did in May 2019. (Pi314m's limitations, which he tacitly admitted to in the course of the ANI, are that he has no experience other than with personal backup applications and that—having been forced by his sub-culture into an education after the age of 13 conducted almost entirely in a non-modern European language—he lacks the ability to read the high-school-level technical English or math of even his chosen references.)

So please feel free to make criticisms and suggestions on the "Backup" article's Talk page. The concept of the original article authors was evidently to create an "everything a totally-uninformed computer user needs to know about backing up his/her data" article. I've chosen not to mess with that concept, as has Pi314m—who along with "dumbing-down" enterprise backup features of which he had no knowledge—attempted to clarify the article by dividing it into finer sub-sub-sections. Pi314m also merged-in a sub-sub-section on "Continuous Data Protection", unfortunately without understanding from the article he merged-in (which I've re-established) the distinction between real CDP—an old and rare feature—and "near-CDP"—a common feature of many backup applications developed after 2008 that is usually called CDP but really isn't. I expanded that sub-sub-section with quotes from Pi314m's references, to make it clear that the "Backup" article only discusses "near-CDP"—because real CDP is truly an enterprise-only feature. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi DovidBenAvraham and thanks for your message. The subject of the article is not one I have more than basic knowledge about, however as that kind of reader of the article, my opinion would be that it currently comes across as more of a "how to" rather than an encyclopedia article. There are plenty of sections which start with a link to an article on another topic, which suggests they could be trimmed right down with the link sufficing to provide further explanation. Other sections appear to make value judgments / verge on giving advice, e.g. The section of "Managing the information repository" with starts with "a balance needs to be struck" which is not encyclopaedic language at all or the section on "Limitations" which sets itself up to talk about "effective" schemes or "Managing the backup process" which talks about "best practices" .. these again take a how to/advice approach rather than an encyclopaedic explanatory approach. So I would suggest that the whole article needs some serious re-writing and trimming. I don't have the time right now, and as I mentioned, I would be writing from a completely non-technical point of view, simply for reader understanding and the focus of making it more of an encyclopedia article than a how to guide. But I'm happy to have a go in the coming days and maybe you and I can work together so that you can make sure I'm not changing the meaning or taking out important content that is not found elsewhere? Thanks, Melcous (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Melcous, for responding despite my "wall of text" writing style—which other editors have complained about. I must have been bitten by a semicolon at an early age. What you've said already is a great help. When I first added a new section at the end of the "Backup" article nearly 3 years ago, I noticed the "how to" and "advice-giving" tone but was not too bothered by it. I guess that proves I haven't yet adopted the encyclopaedic viewpoint. One problem I'll have with trimming the article is Pi314m's attitude. A major sin I taxed him with in the ANI was his merging 9 or 10 other related articles into the "Outsourcing" article starting in January 2019, and destroying much detail in the merging-in process. Pi314m doesn't like having to follow links, and apparently a lot of other readers agree with him. In fact on the ArsTechnica.com forums the moderators have more or less forbidden me to link to other posts I've written. Don't worry about having a non-technical point of view. When I started expanding a stub WP article on a particular backup application back in the fall of 2016, the only experience I had with the application was as a long-time home user. It happens to have a lot of enterprise client-server features, so I became familiar with those even though I don't use most of them. IMHO I now have an adequately technical point of view on the subject of backup, as proved by my understanding the existing "Continuous Data Protection" article when Pi314m didn't. With your guidance, I think I can handle the comprehensibility rewrite of the "Backup" article—I just have to look at it from the point of view of the typical encyclopedia reader. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm bowled-over, Melcous, by your having taken the time to "have a go" at trimming the article. Because I had been slightly too modest about my efforts in editing it over the past 6 months, I found I had to add back into its lead modified versions of a couple of screen lines of text. The original versions had been discussed ad nauseam on the Talk page, but I'll summarize them here to spare you the effort of reading those discussions. First, the article as edited over previous years didn't use an internally-consistent term for the file onto which a backup is written. I settled on (the 1960s-originated but unfamiliar except to Unix/Linux users) "archive file" as being application-neutral, but JohnInDC wouldn't let me add a few lines about its use in backup to its own format-oriented article. So I put in a reference and a clarifying Note into the lead of this article, and I've now added it back. Second, almost 6 months ago an unregistered editor using the "handle" Rmokadem added a reference to a 2006 academic paper he had co-authored. Because his paper was about backing up the RAM on each storage node onto the local disk, it was irrelevant to the topic of the "Backup" article. Therefore, after moving Rmokadem's ref to another seemingly-relevant WP article, I put into this article's lead the specification that backed-up data must already be in secondary storage—which I've now re-added. Thirdly, I've put back into this article's lead a link to the "Enterprise client-server backup" article, which consists of text that used to be the last section of this article. As the result of an RfC it was agreed that I should split off that section into a separate article to prevent Pi314m's "internally merging" ignorantly-simplified paragraphs from it (he grudgingly agreed not to re-merge the two articles if I did so), but the split-off has decreased the average combined weekday pageviews for both articles by 13%—so I've re-added a link from this article's lead to the split-off article so that readers can find it. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
DovidBenAvraham, Great - I'm fine with you adding things like that back if you think I have missed out something significant in my attempt to make it more readable. Do you want to have a look at the heading structure as I have changed - I tried to simplify it to remove too many levels of headings and inconsistencies, but you might want to check it is 100% correct - i.e. each of the six subheadings under 'Backup methods' is indeed a method; and each of the five headings under 'Storage media' is a type of media, and there are five different way of Management. If you are ok with those headings, I will then try to see if I can simplify any of the text in those sections for readability. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I've actually gone and done this for the section on "Backup methods" so have a look and see if you think there are any errors. I think it is a bit easier to read, especially for those new to the topic? Melcous (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm generally fine with your heading structure, especially as the sub-sub-headings were put in by Pi314m in his efforts to make the article easier to read (as you can see, I've been taking an online course at the Donald Trump School of Blaming Everybody Else). However I think you've over-simplified the "Near-CDP" sub-section. One thing I tried very hard to get across in that sub-section is that you can't use near-CDP when you must be able to restore an application to the absolutely-latest transaction. For example it might be OK to lose the last 10-15 minutes of word processing data, but it definitely wouldn't be OK for a major discount chain with hundreds of stores to lose the last 10-15 minutes of register card-reader transactions before a chain-wide system crash (last paragraph in linked-to section). BTW, in my 07:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC) comment I was a bit too hard on Pi314m; the "Enterprise client-server backup" paragraphs he "ignorantly simplified" back in May 2019 didn't then have enough detail to make it clear that the features they're talking about are supersets of similarly-named features in personal backup applications. The reason my "near-CDP" sub-section was so lengthy was to prevent typical readers getting bamboozled—as Pi314m was—by industry misuse of the "CDP" term. I'm going back to bed, because it's 6 a.m. in NYC. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
In response to your comment on my Talk page, I've eliminated the " 'granularities', 'restorable objects', 'crash-consistent' and 'logical objects'" phraseology you objected to. In the the "Continuous Data Protection" article, it had been copied—without quoting—in 2006 from an article which was undoubtedly about true CDP rather than near-CDP—which AFAIK didn't exist yet. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Now that you and I have made these changes, Melcous, may I have your permission to remove the {{Incomprehensible}} tag from the "Backup" article? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi DovidBenAvraham, I've had a chance to have a go at editing the rest of the page and so have removed the tag. You will see that I did remove a section from the bottom that I felt in particular read like a "how to" guide and gave non-neutral opinions on the topic (egg, what was best practice or most effective etc). It would be good to discuss on the talk page if you think there is significant content that has been taken out in doing this, where and how it could be included elsewhere in the article in a more neutral way. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Melcous, in general your changes make the article easier to understand. What you have edited out is mostly text that was added from 2004-2011, or by Pi314m back in May 2019. However there are a couple of exceptions to this, which I'll have to remedy one way or another. One exception is that, by deleting "True" as the first word of the "Near-CDP" sub-section, you concealed a distinction I was at pains to make between true CDP—a feature which is very expensive but vital for high-intensity interactive applications—and near-CDP—a feature which at most is adequate for low-intensity interactive applications (as I stated in part of the "Live data" sub-section text you deleted). The other exception is that the text you deleted included old mentions of enterprise client-server backup features, but also links I had added. Once I originally established "Enterprise client-server backup" as the last section of the "Backup" article in late 2017, those old mentions no longer needed to be there. However I'm worried about pageviews statistics showing fewer people than I think should be are looking at that section since it was split off into a separate article. I've therefore used those mentions to put in appropriate links to the split-off article, but you've now deleted several of those links—leaving no place to put them back in. I'll discuss these problems on the article Talk page, as I think you are suggesting; other editors may also have suggestions. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a web-host

Hello, Melcous,

Thank you for your work tagging pages for speedy deletion. However, in the case of User:Shiv Subam, the only offending content was an external link which didn't really have anything to do with work on Wikipedia so I removed it. Sometimes, when there isn't a full page of content, like a full biography for someone's career, it's simpler to just remove the inappropriate content rather than delete the entire page. Thanks for your work. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Leticia Caceres page

Dear Malecous,

I'm kind of new to Wikipedia as contributor. I do not understand why you are reverting my work on Leticia Caceres page. She is a Teather director we admire here in Australia and we building her page in the best way we can. I have follow all the guidelines but you keep reverting my changes.

I do not have multiple accounts. User Carla Sarli is a collaborator of mine.

Please let stop your intervention.


Thank you very much


Sebastian Bourges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastianbourges (talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sebastianbourges thank you for responding. You need to carefully read through the conflict of interest policies as you have been asked to do previously, and declare any connections. You also need to understand the "sock" and "meat" puppetry guidelines, and that asking other users to create accounts to make the same changes you have made that have already been reverted by other editors is not ok. Finally, you need to look at guidelines around writing content neutrally and without promotional wording, as well as making sure all content is reliably sourced. The best thing you can do at this point, after responding to the questions around conflict of interest and meat-puppetry, is to engage in discussion with other editors on the article's talk page rather than simply continuing to make the same problematic changes over and over. Thank you Melcous (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Let me add, Sebastianbourges that a quick google search suggests that your collaborator is your colleague and that you both may be engaged in WP:PAID editing, which must be declared here. This is not optional, but something you agreed to when you created your accounts. Please do not edit again without responding to that issue. Thank you Melcous (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Leticia Caceres page

Dear Malecous

I appreciate your time to go over and over undoing my work. I certainly find Wikipedia guidelines almost impossible to understand as there are no action I can take. There is an endless amount of pages of documentation that never tells you how to resolve the issues. Example of disclosing close relationship with subject or being paid to maintain a page. I can not find absolutely any way to prove/disprove this. I'm creating and maintaining a page of an Australian celebrity that I happen to admire. This is my contribution to Wikipedia.

I'm trying to create a similar pages to these ones, also people I know and admire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Mulvany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Purcell

It seems to me that you are just trying to make my life difficult for no reason. Thi is a kind of cyber bullying.

Why are you reverting my changes? If it is about proximity with the subject, there is nothing I can do about it. By the page way the page has been created by another person originally and you can find many contribuors in the version history.

The contributor Carla Sarli that you accused to be a fake account, she is a close collaborator of mine and we work together. That is the explanation for the same IP.

Please stop this behaviour and remove me from the black list you added me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastianbourges (talk • contribs) 09:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have explained the issues with your edits and pointed you to pages where you can read more about them. I have also suggested you discuss on the article's talk page which is where you can make suggestions and get feedback from other editors - wikipedia works by consensus between editors. I did not accuse anyone of being a "fake account", rather I have raised the question as to whether this is undisclosed external relationships between various editors and the subject of the article and as there was no response, I took the next step which is to ask for external help in resolving the question. You are welcome to comment on the investigation page as you have done. It is not a black list, nor is it up to me to remove that page - an independent decision maker will have a look and decide what is the appropriate response. Melcous (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Flexirent Page is out of date and incorrect

Hi. You have reverted the information on Flexirent (Flexigroup Pty Ltd). Just wondering why as the information that was on the existing page was incorrect and out of date? This can be easily confirmed by looking at the groups website. This includes it's brands, CEO, locations, industries it operates in and even the website. etc. The original post actually seems to more set out like a grudge against the company. The actual title of the page "Flexirent" is incorrect as this is not even a product or brand of the company if you again, look at their company page. [1] The information I was udating was just to correct the incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musrag (talk • contribs) 07:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Musrag, thanks for your message. Updating information is a good thing to do, but adding large sections of content directly copied from the website is not okay. All content should be written neutrally and sourced to independent, secondary sources. It's also a good idea when you're starting to make smaller changes to an article (e.g. updating the names of key people in the infobox in one edit) so that the good additions don't get reverted along with all the problematic content. Thank you Melcous (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ www.flexigroup.com.au

Monty Munford sources

Hi, thanks for your edits to Monty Munford. I'm not sure about the way the sources for each publication Munford has written for are handled: Currently, each source links to an article written by Munford. Would appreciate any thoughts on how best to handle this. I opened the same question on the talk page if you'd like to reply there. Shhh101 (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

John Walsh COI

Hi I see that you have been cleaning up articles linked to the above person. I have opened a topic at the WP:COIN here Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#John_Walsh_(filmmaker). For the moment no-one has taken any interest in the topic, I am convinced that the editors have COI and I am afraid I am having trouble believing the denial. If you would like to participate in the discussion I would appreciate it. Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

North Central Michigan College

Hello,

I recently made edits to the entry for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Central_Michigan_College per the recommended inclusion of citations and references to reliable sources. The changes were reverted, including the broken url under the references section. Please let me know what I must do to 1. fix the broken link 2. add citations and references 3. improve the content so it is more inclusive of the program areas, degrees and certifications offered at the college. Thank you in advance for your assistance. --Cataway74 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC) cataway74

Hi Cataway74 and thanks for your message. It's best if you can make small changes one at a time when you're starting out, to make sure they are appropriate and also so that those that are helpful don't get reverted along with those that aren't. The problems were that you added external links into the article which are not allowed and that some of the content added read as promotional or not neutral, e.g. "making it an excellent place for..." is not the kind of wording an encyclopaedia should use. Thanks Melcous (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

List of first women lawyers and judges in Europe

Hello
I notice you just hacked out about 12Kb of material from this page; It might be an idea to open a discussion on the talk page about what you feel the scope of the article should be; the content you removed looked OK to me. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Moonraker12, thanks for your message. Nearly a quarter of the content "hacked out" was extraneous wiki markup so I'm hoping no one has any problems with that kind of gnoming tidy up :) The other content removed was because it didn't meet the stated criteria of the list at the beginning of the article. There have been discussions about this before (this used to be one list but was separated out by continent because it was so large). If you want to open a discussion revisiting the scope I'd be happy to participate but I think what the article(s) currently say is the purpose is pretty clear and adding the first woman of one nationality in a different country, for example, doesn't seem to meet it. Cheers Melcous (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I don't want to be re-hashing old arguments: Can you show me where to find these previous discussions? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you could answer this? Moonraker12 (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Moonraker12, I missed this request previously. It has gotten a bit complicated because there was originally one article and it has been split into various regional ones, and from my memory there have been discussions at various additional places including the talk page of the editor who has done most of the work on these articles, similar articles at the US level, and on Women in Red discussions. I don't have time to track them. As I said, if you would like to open a discussion revisiting the scope of this article, I'm fine with that, my point is that there needs to be clear criteria for any list article, and at this stage the title of the and description of these articles makes that "first lawyer in x" or "first judge of x"; not "first x lawyer of y", and personally I would advocate for it staying that way as to not make the list both unmanageable and potentially meaningless. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for not replying sooner; thank you (belatedly) anyway...
I suppose I was struggling with the idea that, if the parameter was to 'list the first women in their country to achieve a certain distinction', and if we've listed the first female lawyer and the first criminal judge in (say) Austria, why the first female lawyer in Gmunden, or the first female criminal judge in Graz, are equally noteworthy; more than, say, the first woman of a particular ethnic background there would be (especially as they don't seem to have had one yet). But I'm also not sure whether it's worth delving into. Anyway, I wasn't wanting to put you on the spot over it, I was just curious about the background. So, thank you for replying: Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries on the delay Moonraker12 - life is busy! And thanks for your explanation and approach. Personally I'd lean towards removing first in towns or regions as well and keep the parameters of the list much little clearer, but didn't think it was worth arguing over, whereas I did feel like adding a second parameter (i.e. as above "first x of y") opens it up exponentially which didn't seem helpful. Perhaps it is the problem with lists like these in the first place ... it is always unclear where we should stop :) Cheers, Melcous (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Saeed Zahedi

Hi, you added a COI template to this page a year ago. If you feel that the COI has been adequately addressed, would you consider removing.

All the best,

Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielzahedi (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Melcous,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

deleted whole ARPM page

Hi you deleted my whole page that I was working on for days. Can please explain why, and how can I retrieve the whole content to rewrite it ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdalex (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Phdalex and thanks for your message. I didn't delete anything, only administrators can do that, but I did nominate it for deletion, as the note on your talk page says, because it was promotional. Wikipedia content needs to be written neutrally, sourced to independent, reliable, secondary sources and demonstrate that what is being written about is notable rather than look like advertising or be copied from elsewhere. Requests for content to be undeleted can be made here. Thank you Melcous (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Phdalex/sandbox

Hi my page was deleted two times. Second time I tried to adapt it...however it was unfairly deleted again...although I provided other sources...just check this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_in_Quantitative_Finance and explain to me why this page is not promotional and mine was ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdalex (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That other page you have linked to is entirely promotional ... which is why it has also been nominated for deletion. But in terms of making decisions on wikipedia, each article is looked at on its own merits, so the fact that other bad stuff exists is not a reason to keep anything. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Clean Up Tags

Please see my edit request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dime_Community_Bank#Clean_Up_Tags

I kindly request that you remove the coi and third-party tags from that article, or make your case as to why they should remain. Thanks! Brenton (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Chris Dobson

Dear Melcous, OK. Understood. I will collect all the evidence for the notability of these people. It will take time. I read the General Notes at WP:NACADEMIC, first dot point, as you recommended. In that note one reads “claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on.”. The recommended citation metrics for wikipedia, I gather, are Scopus and Web of knowledge. I am wondering how I should refer to the “citation metrics”, such as "Scopus" and "Web of Knowledge". Should I add a generic URL to Scopus? A specific URL to an author citations within Scopus? Many of the people that you have removed form the section "Mentorship" in Chris Dobson, have more citations and are more notable in the field than those that you left. And the number of citations is an objective metric because it provides the impact of an Academic in science. I hope you understand that a problem exists here. I have no conflict of interest, but I will take your advice to read the key principles and start by making small changes that are not discussed so vigorously before going back to this Article.--Norris Weals (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding Norris Weals. Yep, establishing notability can take time, but that's ok as there is no rush here. In terms of your specific question about what to cite, the url would need to be to the specific author. If you are happy to spend time working on this, and these are people who clearly meet WP:NACADEMIC, then can I suggest it would actually be better to see if you can write articles for these people first and then add them to lists like this on existing articles. If you have time to do that, then the best way is to create a draft - which means you can spend time working on it, invite others to help, find references, as well as get feedback from more experienced editors - and then submit it for review when you think it might be ready. You could be working on a draft at the same time as "learning the ropes" by making small changes to existing articles. If you decide to create a draft for one or more of these people and would like help with things like formatting or style, let me know and I'd be happy to take a look. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Connection to IACA

Dear Melcous, I'm new to Wikipedia so, if allowed, could you let me know who you are, and what is your connection to IACA, whether directly or through the International Journal for Court Administration? Many thanks Mark 86.4.51.215 (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a volunteer editor here, like most others, editing for about five years, and you can get a few more details about me from my user page. I have no connection whatsoever to that Journal and I was not even 100% sure what IACA you are referring to but I assume the one that is referred to on the Mark Beer article, which you have recently edited and I have previously edited to remove resume like content, which is not acceptable under wikipedia's guidelines. If you are Mark Beer, then you have a clear conflict of interest and are asked not to directly edit that article - see the guidelines I have linked to on your IP's talk page. Also, if you have a connection to the previous editor Henryjames1073, you should read the guidelines on using multiple accounts and collaborating with other editors and make sure you are abiding by them. Thank you Melcous (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Melcous but I'm concerned by your edits, and the motivation behind them. The use of subjective language such as 'abruptly' when you have no connection to IACA, concerns me. You also, I think, refer to 'first term' when IACA Presidents only have one term - why would you think they have more? You have also deleted the explanation that I added to the page. I have an interest in the page being accurate, but not a conflict. You, on the other hand, do appear to have a conflict as your editing is factually inaccurate and might even be considered malicious. In addition, I believe some of your edits might be considered to be vandalism, including referring to me as 'Her' but am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. I'm not sure how my page differs from many others on Wikipedia and I enjoy some of the articles you have authored, but you seem to have focussed on my page and it isn't clear why. 86.4.51.215 (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
And, of course, I should say that I'm very happy to work with you to improve the page as you have considerable experience of Wikipedia, whilst I only became aware of the current situation from a friend who suggested I look at it because some of the things were inaccurate :: 86.4.51.215 (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, first, I didn't add the content that uses the word 'abruptly' or 'first term' to the article, but I did revert your removal of it. So please take some more time to understand what has happened before making accusations of malicious motivations. I have no idea what you are referring to when you speak of me referring to you as 'her' - again perhaps you have mistaken me for someone else. Secondly, did you read the conflict of interest guidelines? The fact that you appear to be the subject of the article means you have a very clear conflict of interest editing here, whereas I (who, as you would know if you read my user page as I suggested, live on the other side of the world and have edited a wide range of topics here) have no connection to the topic outside of wikipedia and therefore have no conflict of interest. Finally, the article is not "your page" - wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone, and are definitely not owned by their subjects. Again I would suggest you need to slow down, take some more time to understand who has and has not added what to the article, and abide by the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. Melcous (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Finally to add, if there are things you believe are inaccurate in the article, then as the notes I left on your talk page say, you are requested to use the article's talk page to point them out and request they be changed. In doing so, you should provide reliable, independent, secondary sources to verify the content you are proposing. Melcous (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
For your precision fixes on John H. Eicher‎. I learned a few things watching that!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Kari Nadeau

Hello - You reverted my recent edits to this page, reasons unclear. Additions are well sourced and missing sources from prior added. Format follows general conventions. I will undo your reversion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlotribt1138 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Reasons were clearly given in the edit summary - you added unsourced content and introduced incorrect formatting into the article. I have made these changes, please do not simply add them again. Melcous (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks ThatMontrealIP, I hadn't noticed, but worth asking if there is a COI and keeping an eye on it. Thanks for your work on it so far. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious

women cultural network

Thank you for quality articles about women and their influence, such as African Queens and Women Cultural Leaders Network, Gérardine Mukeshimana, Zakia Hakki and Reine Alapini-Gansou, for service from 2014, making gnomish changes to articles with precise and polite edit summaries, - university teacher from Australia, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2293 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt, that's a lovely message to receive! Cheers, Melcous (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I missed you so far, sorry about that, for two reasons: the user name is similar to another (my fault), and I believe you should take more of your articles to DYK, for more attention to your subjects. Ping me next time you have something suitable, and I can help you. It needs to be well-sourced, not older than seven days, and at least 1,500 characters, - all easy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey

What issue did you have with my edit on Sean Carrolls post. The same applies to Stephen Meyers page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABT02 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi ABT02. The problem is that what you added was both unsourced and what is called here original research. All content added to wikipedia needs to be verifiable by the inclusion of references to independent, secondary, reliable sources. In particular, any content that makes statements of opinion or draws conclusions can only refer to opinions or conclusions that those sources themselves explicitly make, not the opinions or conclusions those of us who are editing have or have drawn from those sources. The links I have included can give you more info. Thanks for asking, Melcous (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey What about the Stephen Meyer Article where his philosophical views are regarded as Pseudoscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABT02 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

First, see this page - the fact that there is a possible problem in one article is not a reason for creating problems in another article. Secondly, without knowing much about that article, from a quick look it appears that that content is sourced. Cheers Melcous (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Cyberbully

I created a page about a photography club and it feels not only you go out of your way to "prove" no notable resources, COI or not enough references; you put the page up for deletion first, accuse others of "voting" and try to sway admin...it's actually kinda funny. Do I know you..Is there something I did to offend you? If I did Im sorry. Instead of trying to help, you seem to try your hardest to get the page removed. Isnt deleting last resort? Seems you might have a COI here? She tagged me on someones page here too "Hello, Halkett99, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Dreerwin" This behavior is tolerated in Wikipedia is it? Threatening/accusing/constant messaging/deleting my pages/vandalizing my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreerwin (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"It seems to me that you are just trying to make my life difficult for no reason. This is a kind of cyber bullying." Just seen this and others about you - "patterns have a way of repeated themselves dont they" --Dreerwin (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Dreerwin, The messages that you are calling "cyberbullying" are all standard Wikipedia template messages, the wordings of which are set by consensus and not personally written by me in any way. As I have already said to you, I'm more than happy if the consensus is to keep the article, my opinion is no more important than anyone else's. What I don't like is people claiming not to have a conflict of interest when they clearly do, and misunderstanding how wikipedia works and thus canvassing other people to come and participate as if it is a numbers game where people vote rather than understand the issues and seek to resolve them. The chances that five brand new editors would independently just "happen" upon this deletion discussion without someone asking them are less than zero. All I'm doing is pointing that out, which is something wikipedia has a process for, hence the templates. Cheers Melcous (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

And I see someone else just commented "keep" I guess I recruited or did that myself too. Least the page I created is well known across Canada. Im also willing to work with people who are kind and willing to discuss things. I dont have much respect for people who lie and blame others/accuse --Dreerwin (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melcous/Archive_13&oldid=1140383433"