User talk:Melcous/Archive 1

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Melcous. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! George Ho (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Melcous, You recently did some edits to external links in the Stokesley Page. I live in Stokesley and I think the changes you have made unintentionally reduce the authority and accuracy of the Wikipedia entry for Stokesley. I would revert to the previous version. I will give you more details if you like. Best wishes, Andy Price a.price@tees.ac.uk 11.12.14

New RfC on Talk:List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees
I have just posted a new RfC on Talk:List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees. Given your previous involvement in the discussion of a related RfC there, you might want to comment on mine. 99.192.66.175 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Barkhad Abdi on List of black Academy Award winners and nominees
Despite numerous editors adding Barkhad Abdi to List of black Academy Award winners and nominees, Middayexpress continues to repeatedly revert it and offers no sources for it. I have posted on Talk:List of black Academy Award winners and nominees, citing both two places where in interviews Abdi self-describes and black and the Black Reel awards which he won. Given your previous involvement in this discussion, I would appreciate it if you would come by and comment. 99.192.50.212 (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestbot
Hi, This is The Real Judi Jai & I was updating my bio so it can be a little more detailed.

Rollback
Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

List of companies of Pakistan
I misread and mistakenly reverted your edit on that page. I have now reverted myself. Edward321 (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Lai Choi San
Hi! I see you undid one of my edits on the page about the (alleged) woman pirate Lai Choi San.

I don't want get into some silly dispute with you, so you might like to read some of thoughts on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lai_Choi_San

Personally I think the article needs to be cut back, and needs a health warning about the dubiousness of Lilius's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.160.232 (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. Note, I'm not sure why a "health warning" is at all relevant - this appears to be simply an issue of historical verifiability. Melcous (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: List of terrorist incidents, 2014
And yet someone else re-added it. :P Jackninja5 (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nicole Baukus
You undid some edits that were actually correcting the page and they were referenced. For example, the page (as you reverted it) states that the judge denied her appeal. That is not true. Even the reference says denied her hearing for new trial (not appeal). Only the court of appeals can deny an appeal. Her appeal is ongoing and the original contributor, and now you, apparently cannot understand the difference. It is nearly impossible to make wiki better when people like you undo things without even knowing why you are doing it or bothering to actually check it. The original facts were wrong so I corrected them fairly accurately and you did this? Seriously? Please revert back to my version which is accurate and quit harm the content of Wiki with ill thought out rejections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PageEditor90210 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tense in 20XX in Australia articles
I've reverted your edits to the 2011–2014 in Australia articles. You said that you changed the items to past tense as per the Manual of Style, but I could not find any such entry regarding tense in this kind of article—can you let me know the link to the page which contains this advice? Also, the main year articles (such as 2014, 2013 and so on) use present tense for their listings as the Australia ones do, so as far as I was aware, that is or was the convention for this type of article/list. --Canley (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

ICTSI
Hi,

I noticed you took out the information on the company subsidiary part and only explained the reverting of the deleted controversy part which was still there when the subsidiary part was added. is there any particular reason why this was taken out?

Thank you.

Hi, The edits made is not in any way promotional. I was simply adding relevant information regarding the company. If you notice the section on controversy is still in the content. If the problem are the links then i can edit them out. The links are direct links to the company subsidiary.

Thank you. 114.198.144.170 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

114.198.144.170 (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Re-edit
Hi, i see that you once again reverted to the old write up. Also you changed most of the info on the panel containing the company info. As i've also said, the info you took out are relevant company information. if the links is the what's bothering you then i can remove the link and make them one general link. If you look at the company website and actually check the information you provided then you would see that it is located in 21 countries and not 11. And again, the controversy section is still there even after the addition of the company location. The controversy section does not even have a working reference to support it. If your basis for removing the other information is the supporting link then this section must also be taken out. 114.198.144.170 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Book of Job/Psalms
You wrote:

''Hi PiCo, it seems there are a couple of articles we have some different opinions about at the moment. I haven't yet had time to contribute to the discussion at the Chronology of the Bible talk page. But on the book of Job, I and another editor have given policy reasons for removing a paragraph that we believe is not presented in a neutral way, and your edit response in reverting was "Nah"? Perhaps you could try to explain in your edit summary your reasoning, or engage in some discussion, rather than simply reverting? Or if you think the information should be included, try to rewrite it in a NPOV way?''

''I have to admit it's not the first time I've found one of your edit summaries condescending and unhelpful. On book of Psalms you edited with "Lord knows what that was trying to say" when the editor (not me) had less than four edits previously given a reasonably good explanation in their edit summary of what they were trying to achieve (there is no separate article for "psalm" and yet the psalms article gives no explanation of what a psalm is or a link to a definition). They may not have done a perfect job in expressing what they included, but a couple of others of us were trying to improve it before you removed it. I still think it's a point worth pursuing and will consider how to do so more clearly, so if you have any ideas feel free to let me know. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)''

On your edit to Book of Job, I find it surprising that anyone should suggest that beliefs and interpretations have no place in religious articles - I would have that that was precisely what religion is about. The material you deleted is from a reliable source, and I don't see what policy you can find to override that. However, I'll have another look.

On Psalms, I had a look at the article. You say that it doesn't give an explanation of what a psalm is, but it does, in the first and second lines: Hebrew "praise", Greek "instrumental music/words accompanying the music." Have I missed something?

My apologies if I sometimes come across as rude, dismissive, condescending and patronising. No doubt I'm all those things. But I'm also sometimes supportive, patient, and diplomatic. Sometimes. PiCo (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi PiCo, thanks for your replies - I'm sure we can all be all of those things at times (I know I can), so thanks for hearing what I was saying so well. I've had another look at Job, as you have below, and I think it is the way it starts that makes it feel non-neutral to me. We have WP's voice saying "Job remains relevant today" and then giving one reason cited by one scholar. I would personally feel Job remains relevant for today for a whole number of reasons, but that is of course my opinion. It doesn't feel neutral to me to have WP say it that way. If we could come up with a slightly different way of wording it I think that would solve the problem: what if it started something like "Contemporary ecological theology understands God's speeches in Job 38-41 to imply ..."??


 * With Psalms, the Hebrew "Praises" is a translation of the title, as is Greek "psalmoi" - the point the other editor made was that the the book of Psalms is a collection of individual psalms (that might seem obvious but it is not necessarily, for argument's sake, there could theoretically be a book called "Psalms" which was a history of praise/worship, or a description of worship etc; and the book of Job is not a collection of "jobs" etc). There is nothing in the article which says that each individual psalm is a poem or song, for example. I don't think it's a huge deal, but would like to see if in the lead somewhere it can use the word "collection" and indicate something about what an individual psalm is (I thought the wikt link Editor 2020 added was a good quick way of doing that). I'm happy to do that, or let me know if you think it needs further discussion and we can move it to the talk page?


 * Thanks Melcous (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * On Job, the first clause "Job remains relevant today..." is just an introduction. Wikipedia is occasionally allowed a voice. I agree that the book is surely relevant for more than one reason, but we need sources that identify them. (Not merely that Job investigates eternal problems of theodicy, but how it feeds into contemporary life).


 * On Psalms, I'm at a loss - it seems obvious to me that a book with a title in the plural is about a collection of individual items. And Job about jobs? That seems just bizarre. The [Psalm (disambiguation)|disambiguation page]] is no help, it doesn't define what a psalm is. I honestly can't see that any clarification is needed. PiCo (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Job: I've had a look at the para now, and this is what you want to exclude: "Job remains relevant today: God's speeches in Job 38-41 implying that his interests and actions are not exclusively focused on humankind, form part of the contemporary movement known as creation theology, an ecological theology valuing the needs of all creation, not just our own species." It's cited. I fail to see what's not neutral about it - Farmer is simply stating that Job forms part of Creation theology, which is a notable strand within contemporary religious thinking. He's stating a fact, not an opinion.PiCo (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Imitation Game intro sentence.
Hey, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia editing, so go easy. Let's compare: The Imitation Game is a 2014 historical thriller film about British mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst and pioneering computer scientist Alan Turing. The film is about his role as a key figure in cracking Nazi Germany's naval Enigma code which helped the Allies win the Second World War, only to later be criminally prosecuted for his homosexuality. This states that the movie the Imitation Game is about Alan Turing. It also states that the film in particular is in regard to his work on the Enigma Code. The latter: The Imitation Game is a 2014 historical thriller film about British mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst and pioneering computer scientist Alan Turing who was a key figure in cracking Nazi Germany's naval Enigma code which helped the Allies win the Second World War, only to later be criminally prosecuted for his homosexuality. This states that this film is about the life of Alan Turing, which it is not. The film is about his work on the Enigma code. I don't want to sound condescending, but I guess that it's hard not to when you're on someone's talk page. I hope I'm not wrong, cuz that wud suck -k_scheik

My fears have been realized. I stumbled into something bigger than both of us. I do however, feel that the first sentence is where the description of the main concept of the movie belongs. Perhaps steps can be taken to ensure that the reader understands that the movie is much more than that. Feel free to delete all this if you feel it's clogging space unnecessarily on your talk page. TheIronSheik (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Question for administrator
I'd like some advice. I stumbled into editing Ari Lehman due to some vandalism and grammatical errors. The article is a BLP about someone who appears to have fairly minor notability, and until a month ago had not been edited frequently of late. In the last 4 weeks, it has been edited extensively by four new users, all of whom have only edited this article, as well asking questions at various pages/talk pages about this article. (There have also been some reversions by myself and some IP editors, and one of the IPs in particular has received heavy criticism - not all undeserved - from some of the new users). Obviously it seems like a huge coincidence that four brand new editors would emerge simultaneously on the same article independently. However, at this stage I'm not sure if their editing is particularly bad - but they do tend to agree with one another, and tend to promote the subject of the article. My question is whether I should do anything about this - I've never been involved in reporting Sock Puppetry or anything else, so would really love if someone else could have a quick look and tell me if this looks like the kind of behaviour that should be reported at this stage or if I should just leave it be. Thanks for your help. Melcous (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an Admin As you are a twinkle user you can go to the suspected sockmaster's talk page and click the TX tab on top, then click ARV and chose Sockmaster it will ask you for the suspected puppets and any evidence you feel is important to the investigation. If you have questions about the Twinkle usage please let me know I will do my best to help you out.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mcmatter, appreciate your help. While I've been figuring this out, someone else has gone ahead and reported the users and they have been blocked for sockpuppetry, so all good, but thanks again for answering my question! Melcous (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

New South Wales
I must admit, I had a chuckle when I saw your revert at New South Wales. The first pronunciation example was "'n' in 'new'". Strange that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

MEF International School Istanbul [ Response ]
Hello. I have seen your message about my school editing the MEF International School Istanbul Wikipedia website. We have seen that it is now semi-protected so we cannot edit it anymore. We know that the problem is because we only have one resource and we need more. We are researching more resources for our school. What can we do to be able to edit again? Thanks you for your understanding, Blueberry-BubblyGum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueberry-BubblyGum (talk • contribs) 08:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kayla Mueller
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ali Mohammad mahar Former chief minister sindh
Hi dear Y U ChanGe My EdiT On Ali Mohammad KhAn MaHaR? Mohsin mahar (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)