User talk:Melcous/Archive 16

My recent edit was removed
I have created a reference topic on "Significance of Cyber Threat Intelligence" & it's been removed due to some reason. I have defined everything clearly on mail, pls check and let me know where exactly I did wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeshek0419 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * : The link you have repeatedly added has been removed as spam. Wikipedia does not exist to advertise your platform, you should use your own website for that. As you have acknowledged that you not only have a conflict of interest but work for the subject of the article, I have left a paid editing notice on your talk page. Please note that complying with this is not optional, it is a condition you agreed to when you created an account here. Melcous (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting for going through a very important article of "Transparent Hands Foundation" USA
Well done mar. I really appreciate your effort, please can you assesse this article? Draft:Transparent Hands Foundation Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting for reviewing an article of newly appointed emir
Well done mar. Recently a new emir was appointed in one of kingdoms in Nigeria and I noticed that the article is not on wikipedia. I request you to look into the article, thank you. Draft:Kabiru Muhammad Inuwa Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Appreciation
Well done for good work. And thank you for making wikipidia unpromotiotional environment Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edit has accidentally removed reference sources in use
Thank you for your contribution to improve Abdullah Al-Salloum, an article that I've created. Your recent edit has accidentally deleted reference sources -^18, ^19 and ^20- that are already being used in different locations in the article. Please help retrieve those sources back. Thank you again. --Aaehasa (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a bot that will retrieve them in due course. Thanks Melcous (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Assistance
Please mar. Can you describe me how to upload an original image on a page? Abubakar Balarabe (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No sorry, this is not something I am familiar with. You can read this simple tutorial. Melcous (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi gorgeous
I don't know if you know but you have just vandalised one of the most important page in the history of my school. t kakaliki. We students welcome changes and criticism but not complete deletion of a work we put in months of our efforts. Gros sauvage blanc. Please do realise that not all african countries have well access to webpage creation like you people do. Pitin, gros pitin. Thank you for your understanding and wish you and your family well. Fr moi croir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.111.169 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Melcous, do you know what this user is talking about? I blocked them for insulting you and . If you're wondering how, look up "pitin". Sorry. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding a recent edit

 * Hi Drmies I suspect it was because both Melcous and I removed a load of unsourced/promotional additions from Sir Abdool Raman Osman State College - Arjayay (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's crazy. They were complaining about lack of internet access in Africa, while editing from Scotland and Canada? Drmies (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am the editor from Canada. First off, I am genuinely sorry for the Scottish editor's insults towards Melcous and Arjayay - you definitely do not deserve such remarks and this never should've happened. Let me explain the situation. A number of people put in weeks of effort to edit the high school's page and I'd assume most editors were extremely frustrated upon seeing that the page is now almost empty. A significant portion of the material was removed due to a lack of explanation/context, which is nowhere the fault of international readers. For example, a 'Laureate' is regarded as being among the highest academic achievements in Mauritius, which is a fact yet undocumented on Wikipedia. With the majority of those reading this article expected to be from Mauritius, all the editors probably saw no use in specifying such information. However, this eventually led to other editors (Melcous and Arjayay) classifying the said information as being unsourced content, for which I don't blame them. I would come to believe the Scottish editor had a bout of infuriation, which led to their remarks for which I am again deeply sorry. However, I need to highlight that the deletion of the page's content was drastic and apparently done without prior knowledge of Mauritian culture and without recognizing that many aspects of Mauritius go undocumented on Wikipedia. For this, I would request editors to inform themselves more before bringing such changes. Sincere regards, editor from Canada.
 * I guess that's one thing. But content on Wikipedia simply needs to be verified; that's really all there is to it. Undocumented facts need documentation. The other thing is, the article was way too promotional in all kinds of ways, and you can't just restore all of it--and remove the advert tag. WP:SCHOOLGUIDE is useful here. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I won't be having time to edit the page in the near future but I appreciate the feedback. Closing this thread and cleaning Melcous's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.66.112.206 (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks and . And to the IP editors, please do not remove other people's comments from talk pages, that is not ok (unless it is clear vandalism, which this was not). Melcous (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Submission - Speedy DeletionPhilWeinman (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Melcous,

I hope that you are well.

I submitted an article for review yesterday and I have been notified that it has been speedily deleted due to being considered as 'unambiguous self promotion'.

I completely understand Wikipedia's stance on self promotion. The article I submitted was admittedly about my own career journey, however I was sure to write the article in a purely factual and encyclopaedic way. I considered it to be notable as I included almost 30 citations and references from secondary sources and reputable Australian publications that supported the content.

I am an Australian businessman with a passion for entrepreneurialism. My career and business successes have been well publicised in the media for several decades. I am aware of other wiki pages for business people and entrepreneurs such as Edward Pretty, which details their career and business journey's. I personally don't see any difference between those articles and my own and am therefore unsure why my article has been deleted.

I would be open to your feedback and expertise to assist me with getting my article published if you could be so kind to respond I would greatly appreciate your assistance.

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin K. Sovacool
Dear Melcous, I am not a frequent user of Wikipedia (to be fair I had never done modifications in the past), but I recently found out that the majors of study of Prof. Sovacool had been omitted except for his PhD. I see absolutely no reason for this information to be discarded (even if working as an energy expert today, he would probably prefer to leave it implied that his previous studies were in engineering or science fields which is not the case), and thus added it, which I consider important (and it is the norm in academia to be transparent about what you studied and where your expertise comes from).

I have seen the modifications I had made had been deleted, I didn't understand what happened and now I just discovered the "View history" section, and it seems that you are the one who deleted that. If this is the case, could you please tell me why ? In case, it's because you were unsure of the veracity of this change, Prof. Sovacool's CV is available on the university he is working in : https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/benjamin-sovacool(fca10105-c4eb-4f0f-99a7-a354a8a8a47a)/cv.html?id=55652968

Thank you, Best, 2A00:F90:FEB:AF00:69B2:96B3:D6CA:D35 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Cédric
 * Thanks for your message Cedric. In the edit history, you can also see my edit summaries, which note that the content added is not in the sources cite, which was the reason for the removal. Usually, sources should be independent and secondary, but for information like this a primary source would be acceptable. If the information is added back, a source should be included and properly cited. Thanks Melcous (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Melcous, thank you four your quick response. I edited once again doing what is (I hope) a proper job sourcing. Best, 194.230.158.199 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Cédric

Why are you undoing all my edits?
You of all people should know how much research goes into this completely voluntary site. So, why does it seem that you are obsessively undoing every single edit I write? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, as the message I left on your talk page clearly said, your edits were reverted because they added unsourced content to the article. You then editing the article logged out and calling my edits vandalism is inappropriate: see Template:Uw-login as to why you should not make edits both from an account and an IP address, and see WP:Vandalism about what is and is not vandalism. If you cannot provide reliable, independent secondary sources for content, it should not be added to the article. Continuing to ignore these guidelines can be considered "edit warring", which can eventually lead to you being blocked from editing here. Thank you Melcous (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you get to determine what is and is not reputable. The sources I found were not any less than those found on other pages. You deleting literally everything that I edit is vandalism. This is a VOLUNTEER job. Treat it as such and stop being a bully. RedDirtRedBird (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It’s not fair that you’re destroying this page just because of my recent edits. Some of the edits I’m noticing were not even done by me. You can’t tell me that things such as where a person grew up is listed on some news source. It’s in a bio and that’s where I got some info as does anyone on any page about a living person. How do you have so much time on your hands to bully new users? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I get that you are frustrated, but exaggerating doesn't help: I did not delete "literally everything" that you edited. And I have no idea what you mean about "the sources you found" because the edits you made to Amelia Presley that I reverted did not include any sources - that is the issue. Your focus on this particular person causes me to wonder whether you have a connection with her that is making it more difficult for you to be objective? Melcous (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have a connection with her but didn’t realize I needed to!! I’m just trying to edit based on information I researched and it’s frustrating when it just gets deleted every time I try. No don’t really understand any of this. What is a reputable source? Her biography and news from her website doesn’t count? Where do you find information on any of the subjects then? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, . No, it's a good thing that you don't have a connection and are just trying to research - that is what we are looking for here. But wikipedia looks for what are called reliable, independent, secondary sources - so published sources that are not connected to the person, for example books or newspaper articles. If you can find information in those places that is the best bet. And you can see here WP:CS about how to cite sources properly. Wikipedia can take a little while to get used to, so if you read through some of the linked guidelines that should help, but also please ask other editors (including me) if you have questions along the way. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (pinging again due to a typo in my above ping ) Melcous (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my frustration. Thank you for the information. I’m kind of skeptical to move on to any other articles because I feel like I’ve called so much attention to this one that you’ve now deleted a lot of this poor girl’s page and added notifications at the top. Looking at other celebrity Wikipedia pages, I’ve noticed that the sources are no different than the ones that were on this one. Aside from finding a link to her birth certificate, how does anyone prove someone’s birthday with a “reputable source”? They don’t. But Wikipedia allows it. And the Finnish heritage stuff...she literally speaks Finnish, but what newspaper article talks about that? None that I can find. It’s just knowledge you gain from learning about this singer. But Pamela Anderson is also Finnish and there are no newspaper links cited to back that up. These are just things that I feel are being overly scrutinized and I think it’s valid information and defines the artist. That’s actually how I became interested in editing this page first at all. Heritage fascinates me, and that’s what I’d like to say. But how do I add it when there aren’t any newspaper articles about that specific topic. Just her public DNA file which is evidently not “reputable”. RedDirtRedBird (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I am sorry this experience has frustrated you . With the notifications on the top of the page, the hope is that this is actually a good thing, as it can attract other editors to help fix the issue. My advice would be that sometimes it is better for an article here to be more succinct, and my guess is that with the level of fame/notoriety someone like Pamela Anderson has, that kind of information has probably been included in articles, books, profiles etc whereas for others you are correct, it just might not be able to be sourced. My encouragement to you would be to start editing other articles with one edit at a time, either fixing mistakes, or making sure what you add is properly sourced. It can take awhile to get used to wikipedia's style (and quirks!). 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! It definitely is a lot to learn! RedDirtRedBird (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

zox shows
I toured with the band, and was at all of these shows. They opened for all these acts. The tour history, cited, verifies it. Two primary sources -- what more can I say? Accurate Sea (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your message. The goal in Wikipedia is independent, secondary sources, so no, sorry, your own personal knowledge is not sufficient - information must be verifiable by other editors. It would also be good for you to read the conflict of interest guidelines: as someone who toured with the band, these would likely apply to you and so the best thing you can do is suggest edits on the article's talk page, rather than edit it directly. Thank you Melcous (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I was literally *on-stage* for ALL of these concerts. I can 100% confirm, swear to the Lord, that these concerts occurred. Further, the band's website clearly lists all the concerts: http://www.zoxband.com/#tourdates   I am the primary source (the individual who was there), and if that is not sufficient, you can ask the band's booking agent, www.caa.com. This is not a conflict of interest. Also, if you'd like to call me, i can tell you in detail about every single one of these concerts in question. 16:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are misunderstanding what wikipedia is and how it works. That kind of first-hand information belongs on the band's website or on a fan site then. As an encyclopedia, the goal here is to record what reliable, independent sources have said about a topic. And if you were on-stage with them, then yes, the conflict of interest guidelines here apply to you. Please do not continue to edit the article with this kind of content. Melcous (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. To satisfy Verifiability, according to Wiki guidelines, I have “presented what the various sources say”, by adding the phrase “According to the band’s tour page” to the sentence with citation #1. Remember that “Citations should be evaluated on the qualities they bring to the article, not on the quantity of citations available,” according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue

Although possible, it would be unrealistic—-and not appropriate according to Wiki guidelines involving excessive citations—-to provide citations for each concert associated with each band in this list in question. For example, here are a handful of articles that provide evidence of a few bands (ZOX having opened for) on this list in question: http://www.pennyblackmusic.co.uk/magsitepages/Article/5942/Zox https://www.union.edu/news/stories/202010/they-played-here-live-music-union http://www.lawrence.com/events/2006/oct/04/flogging-molly-zox-bedouin-soundclash/?et=15946 https://www.punknews.org/article/27671/tours-streetlight-manifesto-zox-dan-potthast-usa https://www.newtownbee.com/04302004/if-youd-like-to-check-out-one-of-the-bands-that-will-be-at-ozzfest-this-s/ http://www.rirocks.net/Bands/zox.htm

I could keeping listing, as there is evidence online, from firsthand news articles or concert listings, of every band in this list.

The inline citation, helpful as it is, is actually not required in this case according to Wiki guidelines, as the list of bands in question is not any of the following: A direct quotation, a statement that has been challenged, a statement that is believed is likely to be challenged, or contentious material about living persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations

Further, “the Good Article criteria merely state that inline citations are required for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons”.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria      This list does not fall into those categories.

In a more general sense, musical acts that another musical act have opened for do not require inline citations, as they are deemed general knowledge to the music-going public. As cases in point, none of the following opening acts mentioned below have citations (its possible to find hundreds if not thousands of un-cited Wiki entries just like these):

Foo Fighters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_Fighters “Foo Fighters undertook their first major tour in the spring of 1995, opening for Mike Watt.”

The Who https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who “This included a return visit to the Isle of Wight Festival (at the Seaclose Park in Newport) on the 11 June opening date.”

Aerosmith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosmith “These shows were opened by Joan Jett.”

Aerosmith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosmith "Other collaborations, either by individual members of the band or by Aerosmith as a whole, have included Alice Cooper on his Trash album, Guns N' Roses (who opened for Aerosmith during their 1988 tour and had covered "Mama Kin" on their first release) and B'z."

In sum, even though citations (which are readily found online) are not required for this list of bands in question, the single citation listed is sufficient to provide verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.179.110 (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a great breakdown! :-) If you want citations for the approx 42 bands listed here, we can provide press clipping URLs, however this would clearly represent Citation Overkill, in turn causing a credibility risk, according to Wiki Guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_overkill   Specifically, 42 citation would represent "misuse to prove an obvious point, and needless repetition."  For example, the band, signed to a major record label and booking agency, played 250 shows per year for 10 years--so it would be expected that they would have opened for these types and quantity of acts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Sea (talk • contribs) 19:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited M Jonathan Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Trivial Edits
Wanted to find out what trivial classifications are in each edit because I realized that you deleted a section of some updates we are conducting on African Athlete and what they are doing outside of the continent after their life as competitors. Advice. Kakra Payin (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, . Given that he is notable as an athlete, I would expect the article to focus on his athletic career, as that is what the reliable, independent, secondary sources that wikipedia is based on will focus on. This is not the place to list everything about him - social media or personal websites can do that. So, for example, the fact that he has gone on to self-publish some books might be worth a sentence (if it can be sourced to an independent reference that notes that rather than the page for the books themselves), but I would not expect it to be more than that as it is not what he is known for, nor is it independently notable. Melcous (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, I am learning how to work on the athletes pages on Wikipedia to help clean up African profiles and information on Wikipedia. There are a lot of information on Wikipedia about Africans that are organized by people with limited reference details about Africans since they don’t even know where to look for such information. I am trying to learn more about Wikipedia in the process as well. Kakra Payin (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Please delete All tags Andrew maven (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could include which article you are referring to. Please also place new comments at the bottom of the talk page so they won't be overlooked. Thanks Melcous (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Jesse Vint Edit
Hi Melcous - thanks for your feedback. I noticed your note saying you edited because some references were not legitimate, and I will go ahead and double check them. But I noticed you deleted the entire additional content, including the legitimate info with correct references. Just to clarify: did you delete the entire thing based on a few poor references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolmanj (talk • contribs) 07:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, the problem with making one very large edit as you did is that it is very difficult to separate out what is useful from what is not. It is much better when you are starting out to make smaller edits at a time, making sure to provide reliable, independent, secondary sources for any content added. It would also be helpful if you can clarify, do you have any connection to Vint yourself? Thank you Melcous (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Re list to prose
Hello Melcous, I want to follow-up re your guidance to shift to prose format on Marver_Bernstein -- certainly not difficult to execute but as I’m working toward being able to advise other new editors as well, would you happen to know of or have a favorite exemplar for comparison? (BTW, I’m still working to rediscover the reference as it came from an obscure archive.) Would you similarly advise prose for Marver_Bernstein speakers' list? As I note in-line, the symposium speakers’ list makes more sense to eventually exist on a page for the symposium itself. The current content inclusion here is intended only as a transitional step, giving other editors a chance to infill, enhance, and move. So I'd be interested, from a process standpoint, of how that ties to current formatting choices. Many thanks for your feedback and improvements. Zatsugaku (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Stop trolling and harassing me!
Robert Obojski page was created by me for Bob. He was a neighbor and close friend. I was his care giver. I was his healthcare proxy and followed family instructions to remove life support. I arranged his funeral. GustavM (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am neither trolling nor harassing you. As I have now referred you to multiple times, wikipedia's core guidelines say that content is required to be verifiable by reference to reliable, independent sources. Information that is gained by an editor personally does not meet that criteria, and is "original research" which is not ok here. You should also familiarise yourself with the conflict of interest policy which suggests that you should not be editing this particular article at all. I understand that you are grieving and emotional about this, but that is exactly why wikipedia has these kinds of policies, so that editors don't get involved in topics which they will find it difficult to be neutral about. Melcous (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why the reversion of the carefully composed article on Mary O'Donnell Fulkerson?
Hi Melcous, this page is in the process of being co-created with much love and diligence by some of Mary Fulkerson O'Donnell's closest professional collaborators, students, etc. As such it represents a legacy of someone who has been instrumental for contemporary dance in Europe. We are doing this by following the basic idea of Wikipedia. We did not attack anyone or make anyone look bad. A lot of data had been carefully assembled by today, plenty of independent sources quoted. Can you please state on what base you interfered in this process, without any previous statement or communication, no marking in advance which you could have done as a gatekeeper, to properly state your objections and give us time to learn? Of course erring is humane, so if there was a mistake, so be it, let's correct it together. Sincerely, Thomas_Kortvelyessy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.157.130.6 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Thomas, and thanks for your message and explaining the editing, which does make sense. Can I ask you and those collaborating with you to please read wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, which suggest that rather than edit the article directly, people with a close connection with the subject of an article should instead use the talk page to suggest changes. It is understandable when you know someone, particularly someone who has recently died, that you want to write about them in a way that honours them, but that is not what wikipedia is for. This is an encyclopedia not a legacy or memorial page, and as such content should only be added if it is verifiable by reference to reliable, independent, secondary sources and written in a neutral way. Much of the content added was not sourced, nor written neutrally. An experienced editor,, has already started doing some clean up on the article, so my suggestion is that you use the Template:Request Edit on the talk page and one of us or another independent editor can review your proposals and make appropriate changes. The best way to do this is to make one suggestion at a time; there is no rush. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

like resume & more categories
Hello, Apologies that the page I created (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilok_Chandra_Goel) appeared like a resume. I have made some edits and request you to please have a look and remove the like resume tag. If you still feel it is not neutral enough, could you please make some suggestions. Having looked at many other living people wiki pages, I find this page fairly neutral now.

I have also added more relevant categories to this article. Please amend this tag too if this is up to your satisfaction. Thank you for keeping tabs on Wiki content. Best wishes, Batsman2 (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A question about credits
thanks for pointing me to the policy on credits, particularly regards images in the info box. Actually hadn't read that before. So, it's good there's no credit there. Is it okay to have a credit in a caption when an image is used in the body of an article?The Little Platoon (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries - my understanding is that the same guidelines would apply within an article, an image licensed to be used here should be freely available and so no credit is necessary or desirable - the purpose of the image is to illustrate the article content. It would only be the person who took the image is in some way significant and/or notable that perhaps a link to them could be worthwhile. Thanks Melcous (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * understood, and thanks for taking the time to explain.The Little Platoon (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message
Hi Melcous, thank you for leaving your message on my talk page. Apologies for my recent edits that were not relavant. Thank you. Arun prasad pandurangan (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Help Publishing
Could you help me by any chance please, publishing the page I made, it just says draft and I don’t know how to publish it. Thanks so much Derrick roper (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , no sorry I will not help you publish an article about yourself - that is not what Wikipedia is for. See WP:AUTOBIO for why it is strongly discouraged. Melcous (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ZOX editor
Melcous, I reverted the COI editor's addition of badly sourced promotional material to ZOX. I'm not sure if any friendly admins are watching your page, but if they are, :user:Accurate Sea needs a cooling off block for edit warring, using Wikipedia for promotion and refusing to understand our rule on COI and sharing accounts. Or perhaps just a pBlock for ZOX would do it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciate the help! Melcous (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

We appreciate your attention to this page. Please note that no facts in the posting are "promotional" in nature -- they are historical, evidence-based details. As stated prior, if you feel 41 citations for the band list would be necessary, they all can be provided. (As explained in Melcous' Talk, however, this is not necessary within the rules of Wiki.) In terms of edit warring, it goes both ways, remember! All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Sea (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Responding to message
Hello Melcous,

I am trying to respond to a message that left on my page. I am not getting paid for my efforts although I do know the person I wrote the article about. I just believe that she should be known within the database. I am new to this so don't know how to do a lot of things but I feel very attacked by this whole thing when I haven't tried to anything with malice or for personal gain. I especially didn't appreciate the words of the user Deb who I feel has attacked my charter and made assumptions about me which are untrue. I would really appreciate it if we could work this whole think out and my work could be restored.

Many thanks, Emma Dil (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your message. It is quite common for editors starting out here to feel overwhelmed, and even as you said "attacked". Please be assured that this was not the intention, and the messages left for you by myself and the two other editors were not suggesting  any malice on your part, but instead a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. It is not hard to google your connection to the subject of the article, and the wikipedia guidelines are clear that interns are considered employees, so it would seem clear that the paid editing guidelines would apply to you. So the two options you have are (1) to create a draft article and use the WP:AFC process to submit it for review; or (2) to suggest that someone else write an article using the WP:RA process. Please ask if you have any questions about either of those. Thanks Melcous (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Eva Sajovic for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eva Sajovic, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Eva Sajovic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Berkshire Grey Draft
Hi Melcous, I originally published the Draft:Berkshire Grey article, but it was moved to Articles for Creation due to a conflict of interest. It has remained in Articles for Creation unreviewed for the past few months. Are you able to review the draft again for it to be published in article space? If not, could you point me to someone who may be able to help get the review process underway? Thank you. Toddlute (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's how the process works - as the note on the page says, you need to be patient as there are a large number of pending submissions for articles. And unfortunately as a paid editor who should have used this process in the first place rather than publishing the article yourself, asking volunteers to "bump you up the queue" is unlikely to get a positive response. There is no rush, it will happen, you just need to wait. Melcous (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

You have deleted my (accurate) updates...why?
I have just noticed that you have undone some recent edits to my profile. These are all factually correct and important. Do I really have to find someone else to paste them in on my behalf?! RachelSkinner (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes,, as the message I left on your talk page outlines, under wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines you are asked not to directly edit an article about yourself or your company, but rather to request edits on the article's talk page. You can most easily do this using the Template: Request edit. You should also point to reliable, independent, secondary sources for content you are proposing be added. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Social Enterprise vs. Actress

 * Thanks for your message . The kind of content that has been added to the article reads as promotional rather than encyclopedic. Wikipedia does not exist to reflect what someone is "passionate" about or "wants to talk about", but rather what they are notable for according to independent sources. It appears that her primary notability for an encyclopedia article is as an actress. Like many people in that profession, she has then used that platform to go on and do charitable work which is admirable and rightly included in the article, but that does not mean that the encyclopedia article about her should suddenly become all about that, or include long lists of links to every interview she has ever given promoting her work, particularly when some of those are not sourced. It would also be helpful if you could respond to 's question on your talk page about your connection to the subject of the article. Thank you Melcous (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you think about this source?
I note you've been doing some great editing on a page I created. Can I ask your opinion on referencing a source? This link offers primary sources into "Graham Hill (theologian)" connections, roles, and activities with major universities, colleges, and organisations. In one sense, it is a good source of primary data from representatives from 20+ institutions. But, because it is located at the academic centre directed by the subject, do you think it's a bit compromised or promotional? What do you think about this use of this source? Appreciate your advice.

https://theglobalchurchproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Professional-and-Academic-References-2020-Graham-J.-Hill.pdf

TrekMaster1900 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your message. Thanks for creating the article. Most of the editing I have been doing has been to bring it into line with being an encyclopedia article rather than a personal or promotional profile. In that vein, I'm not sure what the purpose of the source you mention above would be. The goal of wikipedia is to find reliable, independent, third party sources and report what they say about a subject. Personal references like that belong to resumes or on people's own websites, not in encyclopedia articles. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I was a bit perplexed. It could be argued that they are independent, external references to the impact of the subject's work; but because they are grouped on the website of the subject's research centre, there's a conflict of interest here that should be avoided in referencing these. They are no longer independent and third party. Appreciate your advice. Steep learning curve!

TrekMaster1900 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Improving pages
What’s the best way to find pages that need copy editing? Got some time on my hands, so I’m keen. Thanks TrekMaster1900 (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, great that you're keen! I've found copyediting to be a really good way to get into wiki editing and learn the ropes. There is some good advice here, and you can find a list of articles that have been tagged as needing copyediting here: . Another simple way I have found is to pick a common mistake (e.g. a particular typo, grammatical or style error) and do a simple search for it - using a tilde (~) plus quotation marks in the search box (e.g. ~"alot") will help you find any articles containing that particular word or phrase. Happy editing! Melcous (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! TrekMaster1900 (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Brenda Allison in human magnetism
Why did you remove Brenda Allison She was the only black person on the list. Ankar doesn't have more clout. Have you read the Wikipedia racial bias report? Brenda All (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Since you were adding a link about yourself, you might benefit from reading the Wikipedia policies on self-promotion, conflict of interest and external links. Possibly (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm here by an administrator invite. Human magnet Anun Raikar Wikipedia page has lifted 7 paragraphs and a 7 line quotation from an article in India Today about him. You possibly worry about that. Brenda All (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tsnungwe wikipedia entry
I saw your note on missing internal references for the Tsnungwe entry. I have added references. Can you give feedback? If it looks okay, please remove the caution at top of page about original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny ammon (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your message. The adding of references is good, and I see that  has also done some tidying up of the article. However there is still content on the page that appears to be opinion or original research. In the lead section, for example, the paragraph starting "The Tsnungwe are a peaceful people ..." makes a number of statements that are not found in the two sources cited. I also note that your user name is the same as that on sources you have added. Please make sure you have read wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines and are abiding by them. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Jenn Gotzon
Hi! I saw that you made an edit to the page and I was wondering if you'd think it would be worth nominating it for deletion. The sources seem to have been mainly promotional ones rather than actual independent secondary sources and the page seems to have major COI issues. What are your thoughts? Sdrqaz (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your message. It does look very promotional and I wondered the same thing. It seems that there might be a claim to notability as an actor and a couple of independent sources, so I might have a go at trimming it right back, and then you can look and see if you think it stands up or should be nominated for AfD? Thanks Melcous (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That sounds great! I'm not very sure about WP:NACTOR (given she's not even mentioned in Frost/Nixon (film)), but we'll see if it's redeemable. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've done the best I can for now. Many of the references are interviews and thus not independent, so I still have questions about notability too. However, I see that when PRODded the article in August,  noted that it was not eligible as there was a previous AfD discussion (2007, the result of which was delete) so perhaps those editors might also like to weigh in? Melcous (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. The guidelines state that once an article goes to AfD, it cannot be PROD'd. But, it can be nominated again for AfD.  Donaldd23 (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You've done excellent work there: it's starting to look like an actual Wikipedia page now. However, I still think that Gotzon is not sufficiently notable and probably a good candidate for AfD, though I don't have as much experience in the page deletion/creation side of Wikipedia as I'd like. It has been pointed out to me that Gotzon may meet WP:GNG. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Comment added 11:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Melcous; please stop removing my entire "notable collaborations" section
Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ALL of my "notable collaborations" are 100% VERIFIABLE WITH THE ARTISTS THEMSELVES Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) I've been a professional performing and studio musician since 1995, well before the internet automatically documented everything (as well as in many cases, I was part of a undocumented live performance, or I was credited only on the "hard copies" of the releases (liner notes inside records, CDs, etc) so for these reasons there may not be easily accessible (or any!) up-to-date hyperlinks for all my citations- however, this obviously doesn't necessarily mean they didn't happen! and again, they ALL did. (also, I'm not sure why you would've added "name dropping" to your edit, which besides being factually wrong, was also a little (needlessly) rude.) this page obviously functions as an online resume/ resource so of course I would include the names of all the artists I've worked for/ recorded with/ played with.Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Timoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)timo ellisTimoellismusic (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors with a conflict of interest are asked not to edit articles directly, so please kindly do not edit this article again. If you wish to make suggestions for improvement, you can put a request on the article's talk page and a neutral editor can review it. But if you simply want to add a long (unsourced) list of people you have worked with, then that will continue to be removed (and yes, it is fair to call that "name-dropping"). This page does not function as an online resume - you can create your own website to do that. You appear to have misunderstood what wikipedia is for. Melcous (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

hi Melcous
Timoellismusic (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ok- the truth is that until now I actually didn't understand how Wikipedia works, so in that context I now understand the need/ protocol for 100% validation, as well as the need to eliminate any COI's, so I'll immediately stop this "edit war". however that said, I'm not sure how that justifies the deletion of nearly all of my introductory paragraph just now, now made dreadfully out of date, + which not only did I not write originally, but also didn't edit whatsoever recently (plus, IMO it's not necessary for you to be (palpably) snarky + condescending about this, either.)
 * Thank you for your reply and for understanding both the conflict of interest issue and the need for sources to verify content here. I apologise if you found my comments snarky - there are a lot of people who seek to use wikipedia to promote themselves and it gets tiresome. The fact that you have replied again and acknowledged your misunderstanding suggests this was not your goal. As I said before, you can use the Template:Edit request on the article's talk page to suggest changes (providing reliable sources for content if you do) so that the article can be updated with verifiable information. Thank you Melcous (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

thanks !
Thanks so much for this thoughtful response, and your apology- I really appreciate it- one general thing I might add is that I’d imagine that this kind of thing can get a little sensitive for some independent artists (as it just did for me), considering that the current level that everything needs to be rigorously verified at, may not just be understood as a forgone conclusion…+ especially with content created prior to the year 2000, which in the case with some of my work, may not be verifiable using today’s standards. in other words technically in many of these cases there unfortunately may not actually be Wikipedia-level “proof” available…which IMO, in our current professional media landscape (+ one driven entirely by optics) by default "verification privileges" younger people, whose professional (and personal) lives (relative to older people) have been exhaustively documented. anyway, food for thought. PEACE / Timoellismusic (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Timo

I'm not spamming
I did not put the original link in that article. I am not the actual pod awful. I reverted the other user's edit because they removed it for a personal reason. The user Catfights1 is someone who has issued death threats to the host of Pod Awful, and removed the reference to the show because of their personal beef. I simply restored the page to how it was for the past few years. Revert the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podawful (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , firstly, you should check the Username policy, because the name of a company/group is not allowed. Your username gives the appearance of a conflict of interest, which means that rather than directly inserting a connected link into the article, you should use the talk page to suggest it and let someone else add it. If you don't have a conflict of interest, you should make this clear and change your username. Thanks Melcous (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

i clearly
did not add the link to begin with, it was on there for years. despite the issue with my username there is no reason to disallow the edit because the removal of the original link from years ago was what was done in bad faith. This is clear from the notes in the edit history. I'll change my username, you fix your reversal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podawful (talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Who are you and why are you putting up profiles without authorisation
Why are you publishing profiles for individuals without authorisation? Your profiles are sensational at best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.152.57 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". No one needs authorisation to edit here. And the articles I have created are based on the information available in reliable, independent sources, again, which is how wikipedia works. Melcous (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Alan Mikhail
I wonder which one of the six socks who edited Alan Mikhail decided that 22 sources at the end of one sentence was a good idea. I mean, why not 40 at that point? Possibly (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and paid editing
Hello, Melcous. Thank you for getting in touch. I don't have an external relationship with the organization. In addition to avoiding any mistakes and conflicts, what should I do?

Regards, Hansaz--Hansaz (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for replying . The user page you created here would suggest that you do have a conflict of interest if you are writing about your employer. What that means is that should use the Articles for Creation process to submit the draft for review when you think it is ready. If it is published, you should avoid editing it directly and instead use the talk page to propose changes. In terms of writing the draft, make sure everything is written neutrally and not promotionally, and properly verifiable by reference to reliable, independent secondary sources. So for example, the current draft reads as if it was written by the company about itself - using promotional rather than neutral language, and has no sources. Thank you Melcous (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversy regarding the contribution by T.H. Tse towards the $140 million donations
Dear Melcous,

Background

I have great interest in metamorphic testing (MT). I helped edit the Wikipedia page several years ago. Originally, many of the references that I cited were by Australian authors. According to a survey published in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, the Australians have published > 30% of the MT papers. Yet, almost all my citations involving Australian authors were immediately deleted by other editors. I had no time and energy to continue with the edit war. Hence, when I created my first Wikipedia page, I chose to portray T.H. Tse, who is the most prolific author in MT outside of Australia. In fact, I was planning to create Wiki pages for three Australian authors, but because of the edit war, I had to shelve the idea. Thus, the article for Tse is also my only Wikipedia page. This causes serious suspicion by other editors, who have made many attempts to find fault with my editing. It is quite exhausting to show my honesty repeatedly. Please excuse me if I appear to be defensive.

Tse as the Matchmaker for the $140 Million Donations to The University of Hong Kong

(1) On 29 January 2020, I wrote that “Tse served as the matchmaker of a $100 million donation to The University of Hong Kong”.

(2) On the same day, an editor undid the revision, claiming that “there is nothing in the sources that says he was the ‘matchmaker’; it just says that the two of them got together and discussed it”.

(3) On 30 January 2020, I rewrote the sentence as “Tse sparked the idea to the generous donor Mrs May Tam for a $100 million gift to The University of Hong Kong” according to the wording in the secondary source. This was apparently well accepted. A year came by without controversy.

(4) On 18 December 2020, I updated the amount of donations to $140 million.

(5) On 10 January 2021, you rewrote the sentence as “Tse's childhood friend May Tam undated $140 million to The University of Hong Kong”. Thus, the contribution by Tse was ignored.

(6) On 11 January 2021, I quoted the sentence “The idea for the generous donation came when Mrs May Tam reconnected with Professor T.H. Tse ... at a class reunion” from the secondary source, to inform readers about Tse’s contribution.

(7) On 12 January 2021, you deleted the quotation.

(8) On the same day, I explained that “We cannot simply write that Tse's friend made donations to a university. It does not make sense to readers why it should be stated in the Wikipedia entry.” I rewrote the sentence as “Tse ‘reconnected’ a childhood friend May Tam and ‘sparked’ donations of $140 million to The University of Hong Kong”.

(9) On the same day, you concluded that the whole paragraph “doesn’t really belong in his biography then”, and deleted it.

(10) On the same day, I appealed to you to “Please stop the edit war”, and undid the deletion.

(11) On the same day, you reverted my edit, and suggested that we “take it to the talk page”.

I do not want an innocent professor’s Wikipedia entry to be adversely affected by any misunderstanding between you and me. I sincerely hope that you appreciate the real situation. I am seeking your help to solve the issue amiably.

Laiwoonsiu (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is how wikipedia works - when editors dispute content, they are supposed to use the article's talk page to seek consensus. I have started a discussion there, you are welcome to join it and explain why you think the material should be included in the article, but you should not add it again unless and until there is consensus to do so. Melcous (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and paid editing
Hello, Melcous. Thank you so much for helping me here. The Draft wrote neutrally with a reference link. It is published already but not submitted for review yet. Could you please guide me with the next steps? I really appreciate any help you can provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansaz (talk • contribs) 08:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and paid editing
Hello, Melcous. Thank you so much for helping me here. The Draft wrote neutrally with a reference link. It is published already but not submitted for review yet. Could you please guide me with the next steps? I really appreciate any help you can provide.--Hansaz (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Asking for help to repair page
Can you help me repair my page. I am a busy academic and I did my best but I cannot do better. Thank you. Edgar Pick132.66.237.205 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

David Gross - new URL
Hi Melcous, thanks for helping. what did I do wrong? I don't want to repeat it. Was I editing an old page? I have that page "pinned" on Chrome - do the URLs change often? You said that category removal was for editors only - but I'm an editor and the category did not fit. David Gross is not an atheist, therefore he doesn't belong to Jewish Atheists. Martine. 23:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your message. The category you added was for "Jewish humanist wikipedians" - the wikipedians bit meaning it is a category for editors here (known as wikipedians) to go in, so it is mostly found on user pages of editors who want to identify themselves that way. The category I changed it to "Jewish humanists" is for people we have articles about who fit that description. I hope that makes sense?! Melcous (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

OMG how silly of me! So glad you caught that! Thanks Melcous! Martine. 01:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, easy enough mistake to make :) Happy editing Melcous (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

David Gross - doctorates
and == Mark Bowick - citations == COI editors - how to offer revisions

Hi Melcous, I ran out of time Friday to do the citations. I plan on doing them today and tomorrow - hoping I'll find PR to substantiate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartineWhite (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see from your user page that you are being paid to edit here. Under the conflict of interest guidelines, you should not be editing the article directly, but proposing changes on the talk page instead. (and it would be advisable for you to clearly disclose your paid status in your edit summaries or on the article's talk page). Melcous (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Melcous, can you give me an example of how I would propose an edit (ie of the doctorates held by David Gross) on talk page, with a COI. I thought that having a COI attached to me was sufficient - but I need to add it when I propose a change on talk? What about minor edits, like commas or updating a family member? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartineWhite (talk • contribs) 22:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * yes you can make minor edits like commas, but changes to content should be proposed on the talk page, most easily done using the Template:Request edit, so they can be reviewed by a neutral editor. Thank you Melcous (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC). Thanks Melcous, I just made my first request, hopefully correctly (for Mark Bowick)Martine. 00:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the request should go on the talk page of the relevant article, rather than on your user talk page. I have moved that one for you - I trust that is ok. Also, the request is not that you would add the content, as you should not be editing the article. Rather, if an independent editor agrees the content should be included, they can add it. Thanks Melcous (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC). Absolutely, I am most grateful. How do I get to the Talk page of the "article" - every time I click on talk, I land on my page. I now see the link at the top of Bowick's page. If it is not there, how would I get to it? Martine. 00:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be different if you are on a mobile device, but generally if you are on an article, there should be a tab at the top left that says talk. Otherwise, you can go directly by typing in to the search for example Talk:Mark Bowick. Melcous (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Thank you Melcous. Martine. 20:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

-- Hello Melcous, I've suggested citations and revisions for Mark Bowick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Bowick?action=edit&section=2 and for David Gross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Gross#ADDITIONAL_CITATIONS. Should I convert these revisions to "wiki-text?" or are they acceptable as listed. Any modifications I should make when suggesting revisions? Also, I read this on Wiki's COI page: "Making uncontroversial edits: Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits: repair broken links, and add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest So may I add / revise citations and bad links myself? Many thanks for your help, Martine Martine. 00:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverts
Please download and study the independence of thought and scholarly intent of the citation before reverting from it, thank you (CJohnF (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)).
 * , no sorry that is not my responsibility. You should not be adding links to your own work. If you think something has value for the encyclopaedia, then you should suggest it on the relevant article's talk page and if an independent editor agrees, they can add it. Melcous (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverts Response
Understood but unnecessary. You have presumed I represent myself. But I represent a body of knowledge = Commercial Knowledge, as in the citation's title (CJohnF (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)).
 * it doesn't matter, either way, you have a clear conflict of interest and are requested again to abide by the guidelines. Melcous (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Tacit Knowledge
Have you considered, and with respect, transcribing tacit knowledge requires a human intervention and humans have names. Commercial knowledge is tacit. It is not written down. My role has been to translate orally discussed information into a format that can be understood by others. I did so because I was asked to (by the US Department of Commerce). If this is a COI then no tacit knowledge could ever appear as a resource for anyone who hadn't heard it. I am simply the human vehicle through which this knowledge has passed. My interest is dissemination(CJohnF (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , I'm not interested in discussing with you what I have or have not considered. You have joined a community that has guidelines for how it operates, one of which is that people who have a connection to a topic can contribute but are requested to do so in a transparent way - declaring their conflict and allowing others to review their contributions. If you are unwilling to abide by that, or only here to disseminate information that is connected to your work outside this project, then you are probably in the wrong place. Please stop posting here on my talk page. Melcous (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Final Word
Though annoying to you, articulating the situation you created for me has been useful (CJohnF (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC))

Any Further Action?
Hi Melcous - would you please let me know if there is any further action you need me to take regarding the edits made to the Laura Wasser page?OnTVinc (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi the main thing that you need to do is declare whether you have a conflict of interest and/or have been paid to edit the page. This can be done on your user page and the article's talk page: see WP:DISCLOSE for templates. If that is correctly done, it is possible the two maintenance templates at the top of the article can be removed. Thanks Melcous (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Denise A. Austin
Hi Melcous, I noticed you have done some edits to the Alphacrucis page and was thinking that, if you have an interest in Christianity, Australian history or university education, you may be willing to look at this draft I created? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Denise_A._Austin_(professor)

I do have a conflict of interest as I am related to the subject but I believe I have noted that on my profile in the correct way, have written in a neutral way with lots of references to outside sources and am trying to go through the correct channel of getting someone not connected to approve the draft.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirimasuka (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can make a few suggestions for improvement for you here, some of which are minor style things but should help. But I could also edit the draft if that is easier, are you happy for me to do that? Thanks Melcous (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done some editing - please ask if you have any questions or want to change anything I've done. I think there are two main issues at this stage:

I also think the title should be changed - there is no other Denise A. Austin, so it doesn't need the (professor) Thanks Melcous (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) it really needs some more independent and third party sources - not connected to Austin in any way
 * 2) it needs more biographical information about her, not just her work.

Thank you Melcous for your advice and for the editing you have done. I will make the changes you suggested and will work on finding more independent and third party sources. Wikirimasuka (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Article on "Innovation economics"
Hello. A while ago I came across the wikipedia article "Innovation economics" which is preceded by the banner "please help to improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style". This is what I hoped to do. The revision of such an article requires a lot of attention and time - i.e. one cannot do it in one shot -, because the way it is structured now leaves much to be desired (as witnessed by the initial banner) and innovation economics is a vast field. The article, as it stands, gives the impression that innovation economics begins with Joseph Schumpeter which is not true, as explicit analyses concerned with innovation were contained in Classical economists' books (e.g. Adam Smith 1776; Charles Babbage 1832; Karl Marx 1867). I added many contents, building around what was already existing. I did not delete a single word of what was already there - even though there are some ideas, quotes, references and names that many competent scholars studying innovation would find out of context. Today I wanted to continue the job, but I found that all my additions (about 7,000 bytes) had been undone by Melcous – who is endowed with “rollback rights”. Obviously if such an authority considers the article as it stands preferable to the one I was writing I have nothing to complain. Maybe it would have been worthwhile to leave in the article at least some minor improvements, e.g. at the very beginning of the article, where one reads that "Innovation is a growing economic theory" while it would be appropriate to say that "Innovation economics is a growing branch of economic theory" (mutatis mutandis, would one define the study of nuclear energy a “growing physics”?). Regards. Stirner61 151.50.48.128 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message and I'm sorry if this has made you feel discouraged about editing. The issue was a number of edits by you and I believe another editor which introduced what is known here as original research" into the article. Wikipedia should always be written from a neutral point of view and all content sourced to independent, secondary sources. So for example, phrasing like "this should not lead us to forget" and "an important aspect to be emphasised"; adjectives like "famous" or "undoubtedly"; and writing commentary like "the last few words refer to ..." and "roughly synthesised as" are all examples of an editor inserting their own opinions/conclusions/research into an article. They may well be correct, but that is not how wikipedia works. I would suggest starting with much smaller changes, like the one you have suggested above. I'd also suggest reading through some articles that are marked as good articles on similar topics to get a feel for how wikipedia is written. I hope that helps. Thanks Melcous (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

AOC Reversion
Hello, I saw you reverted my edit to AOC, I understand this is a contentious topic/figure and many decisions should be made on the talk page. I am only inquiring here as to some of the incidentals you mentioned. My use of "emotional" was used in the source Since I was including a direct quote in the same sentence I placed that citation at the end of the sentence, though I now notice since the Citation to the Washington Post (i chose not to delete the prior editor's citation) preceded it that may have caused confusion. I overlooked that but is it really POV to call a live video of a person crying "emotional"? The word has been very widely used by proper sources to describe that video. I'm still fairly new here and am certainly open to being wrong though.


 * You also noted that my edit was as a whole "poorly sourced", I try very hard to provide accurate sourcing for my edits, especially in this case, but I'm not perfect. What was the sourcing flaws you noticed? OgamD218 (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your message. With the word "emotional" your are right I was looking a the citation to the Washington Post as it was at the end of that phrase and so the source would need to be added there to avoid that issue. But my larger concern and reason for suggesting getting consensus on the talk page for the changes stemmed from the fact that this is a biography of a person's whole life, rather than a recounting of recent events and so for example including three separate quotes is potentially both over-emphasis and "recentism". And the sourcing issue was including content via a second hand quote sourced only to a twitter link, and not actually linking to the urls - if you use the Template  these can be embedded. I hope this has not discouraged you from editing and I appreciate your willingness to open discussion ... as you said, this is quite a contentious topic, so getting consensus is always a good way to go. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Melcous, I appreciate the advice, I will admit I've not been fast to get the hang of some of the features here. I was apprehensive including a link to twitter but it is an official twitter page for NBC News, the link is specifically to a video interview on MSNBC and since its a public page that spares the visitor having to sit through ads i thought maybe it was the superior route.
 * I see your point about recentism and overemphasis, to paraphrase what I said on the talk page in part A congresswoman's experience/response to the most open and violent assault on congress since 1814 may not be where we should minimize detail. More should be added, incl the widely made accusation that she distorted her experience, a claim went well beyond the fringe Not all attacks on AOC or any politician belong on wiki, this was a major event in her career and has received a very high level of coverage plus in the same viral video she discloses she was a victim of sexual assault it seems this is very much an event that merits particular emphasis-especially considering the length of emphasis given to when a congressman yelled b*** at her.OgamD218 (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

continent after United States
You need to add North America after United States. 23.251.2.24 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Biography of Joseph Couture
Looking back through the history of this page, it is clear that you have focused a great deal of your personal attention on this particular page. You continually revert edits, demand citations for simple and ordinary matters and keep reducing the size and scope of information about this individual. Now you have tagged it as not being a notable subject although it clearly meets the guidelines for such as both a published author, award winning journalist and famous gay activist. The pattern here appears to have an element of personal dislike for the individual or subject matter. This is an opening dialogue as per Wiki guidelines before a complaint is filed and a review of your edits requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:2012:35CE:1224:43BB (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to review my edits - if you look through my contributions you will see that I have edited a large number of articles here, so I have hardly focused a great deal of personal attention on this particular page. It is on my watchlist, and so I have noted over the last couple of years when unsourced content has been added and maintenance tags have been removed without improvement of the content and therefore reverted those edits. I have no personal opinion in this particular person whatsoever, my concern has been with wiki guidelines for biographies. If you could clearly explain which of wikipedia's notability criteria this person meets, that would be great and the maintenance template can be removed. Melcous (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Why was this completely unrelated link to the Capital attacks added to this comment? I did not put it there and it has no relevance whatsoever to the matter at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:2012:35CE:1224:43BB (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a footnote from an earlier editor and was not added to your comment, it has been on this page well prior to you editing it. Melcous (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No doubt it is on your watchlist as the history shows that often within minutes of an edit to the page you respond. But you do not simply review the changes just made, you take the opportunity to make extensive changes of your own at that time, usually cutting larger and larger chunks. Like today, you removed his journalism award, which was in fact published in numerous places around the world and is a documented fact. As he was the only journalist in Canada to have won this prestigious award at the time, and under the circumstances he did is only one element of his clear eligibility. This now helps your case he doesn't meet that criteria as things such as winning major awards are a factor. Being an internationally best-selling author is an another example of his eligibility, which has been listed there for many many years and you did not challenge. As is the fact that he was named amongst the top newsmakers of the year at the end of 1995 for both his journalism and the award he won. That same article from the Globe and Mail (one of Canada's most respected national newspapers) mentions his award, but you ignore it and delete mention of the award because you claim another source inaccurate. As you chip away at removing the history, you slowly erode the evidence of his eligibility.

As much of this material is now quite old and was placed here long ago, it is harder and harder to find it in a simple Google search and you are burying his history and putting people in the position of having to work harder to prove things that were previously available and established- and that at an earlier time you even approved yourself. You also arbitrarily decide what stays and what goes regardless of proper and verifiable sourcing. For example, from the last two lines quoted from the same source, you leave one line and remove the second. The second happens to talk about his history of bisexuality and polyamory. You have previously removed properly sourced material on numerous other occasions, seemingly simply because you do not like it. Whether you like this man, or his history does not permit you to decide what details of his life get told and those which get buried. The fact that in raising this issue with you, you respond by immediately further removing documented elements of his history and attacking this individual even more reveals your clear bias. You obviously have had this page on your "watchlist" for a long time and many things that you later changed were there before you appear on the list of editors and you did not remove it until much later. And why only now, after all this time and all your deletions of his many accomplishments, do you now suggest the page be removed?

You have actually made it easy to demonstrate your history of bias and edit warring, a rule which was designed to protect against random members of the public who disagree, and likely not from one of their own editors who may commit such an offence. Since you not only will not cease your campaign or demonstrate a willingness for meaningful discussion, I now have no choice but to escalate this and complain to your superiors. It will be easy in some many cases by examine your history of arbitrary and capricious editing as it is well documented in the record, which, thankfully, you cannot edit out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is a great example of your selective editing:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/bernardo-author-wins-humans-rights-award/article1136923/

This article mentions in the Globe and Mail that Joseph Couture had previously won this award before author Stephen Williams and that such awards are typically only given to journalists living under dictatorships. You claim to have checked this information but it only took a quick check to prove this point as it is so well documented. This award, the circumstances, the high level of publicity around it are all evidence of his notability. Yet you continue to chip away at it. You are well aware that as time goes by more and more things slip behind pay-walls and can no longer be easily accessed by the public and only now make changes that are increasingly difficult to reverse, but easy for you delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Case in point, that link to the article with the headline that Stephen Williams won the same award is no longer found on the web, possibly because the paper is now defunct. Did you simply read the headline and conclude because it only mentions Williams that it had nothing to do with this author? As you can see from the still available link to the Globe, Couture is mentioned as having won it first. So if you read the actual article, or did your own research, you would have known that. But I suggest you are not looking for what you do not want to find. The link to the journalism committee report documenting the harassment of Couture is still active and is evidence again you choose to ignore. On and on it goes, I will be reporting you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Another important item deleted earlier was the fact that he was nominated repeatedly by his colleagues for awards in investigative journalism. Again, many of these links are gone. But this one remains:

ps://caj.ca/blog/congratulations-caj-awards-finalists-2015

I could just go on with this, but I think you should be getting the picture by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The paragraph I remove about the award had only one source, and that source did not mention Couture, hence my removal of it. (I did not just "read the headline" as you suggest, I went to the archived link that was included in the reference this one and it has no mention of Couture. I also checked the other random link included in the reference this one and while it is about Couture, it has no mention of the award). If you can provide another source that does verify that information, then you are free to restore the content and include the source. And as I said previously, if you can provide clear sources and explanation of which notability criteria he meets, please do so (on the article's talk page, not here) and then the maintenance template can be removed. Please tone down the personal comments about me and focus on improving the article. Thanks Melcous (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Re
Joseph Couture

I'm sorry if this appears in the wrong place, but I am hitting the "talk" button and don't know how or why it ends up where it does. You might notice that I did provide you an additional references proving that Couture won this award as well as other evidence about several other matters. Yet you did not restore it or respond to those other concerns at all. I do not think that I should undo these changes as you are the one with the authority of the editor and you are the one who removed them. You might notice that another editor reviewed the same material and commented that the article does say he won the award, contrary to what you say you saw. I do not feel my comments are either personal or intemperate, merely frustrated because it certainly appears from this end that it is very easy for an editor to delete something and nearly impossible for an ordinary person to do anything about it, regardless of the evidence. So my perspective is that I am merely stating the way it is. The other side of not being too harsh in criticism is not being too sensitive in receiving it. It is not personal to me as I do not know you and have no opinion of you as a person, only your work.

I simply do not feel you have addressed my concerns adequately or fairly. However, I give up. It is not my problem personally and at this point the whole world can see that we have entered an era of unprecedented arbitrary censorship. People are taking about it everywhere, while the censors play whack-a-mole and censor their talk of censorship. While we cannot do anything about it, don't think for a moment that the people aren't aware of it and that your credibility has evaporated at the same pace as our freedom of speech and thought. You can now fact check that opinion and label it "false and misleading" and delete it.
 * Great, I'm glad someone has fixed that up. I should clarify that we are all editors here, you, me, everyone. There is no hierarchy of authority to edit, that's the beauty (and a common source of frustration) of this whole Wikipedia project. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI
Your IP friend above has pasted the entirety of the above to ANI. Link. Possibly (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up . I'm not sure there's much need for me to respond there at this stage. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

delete John J. Ensminger
I am trying to get this page deleted as soon as possible but nothing seems to work.50.54.143.3 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)king.parker3
 * That article is at AfD now. The original CSD reasons were invalid. Possibly (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Summer?
Melcous, is it summer down where you are? There is literally a metre of snow in my backyard. Hope all is well. Possibly (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All is well thanks, I trust with you too. And yes, summer here with beautiful sunny warm days ... sorry :) Hope you are making the most of the snow! Melcous (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Conflict of Interest editing
Hi Melcous - you sent me a message about conflict of interest editing. I'm not sure if this is right place to write back to you. In any case, I recently went to a movie theater. It's the first time since covid started. I ended up watching Adverse and I am obsessed with finding out more information about the creative team behind it. In doing research I noticed some things that needed updating on the wiki site. I also noticed that there isn't a page for the other main producer but I don't think I'm qualified for starting a wiki page for someone. I can barely do edits without getting flagged.

Anyway, liking someones work makes me research them and then want others to know the info that I have found by updating the wiki page. I don't think that it means there is a COI.

Please help me get better at this wiki site. It's so very confusing.

thanks

Mona1975 (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your message. It's fine to reply here. Thanks for responding to the question about conflict of interest - no, liking and research someone's work is not a conflict. There has just been a history of people editing that article who do have a conflict (e.g. are personally connected to the person the article is about, or paid by a related company etc) and so when a brand new editor pops up it is good to ask that question.
 * It can be quite confusing when you start editing here, but please ask questions - you can ask me here and I will try to help, but perhaps more helpfully, you can use the teahouse which is a space especially set up for new editors to ask questions and learn. You could also try the ADVENTURE which is a step by step introduction to editing here by undertaking small tasks. My advice would be to start by making small changes to existing articles, asking for help as you go, and working up towards starting a wiki page once you have that experience. And the best way to start an article is by creating a draft, which can be worked on over time and receive feedback from other editors, before it is submitted for review. Hope that helps and happy editing. Melcous (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * do you recall |your first edit to Wikipedia, back in 2007? The one where you said Thomas Ian Nicholas "was born to Marla, not Karen. How do I know this? I AM MARLA!"? Just curious if you recall that. Possibly (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Melcous - thank you so much for the reply. I will definitely check out teahouse and ADVENTURE I didn't know that I could save a draft draft for other editors to help. That is very cool. I'm going to look into that for sure.

In regard to your question about my response in 2007. I think there is a typo in my message. I meant to say that I am a Marla. Meaning that my given name is Marla. It's not a common name and people often call me Maria. Even my own Mother would pronounce my name wrong with her accent and I moaned about it so much growing up that I got the nickname Mona, henceforth my username. In any case, I'm always acutely aware of other people with the name Marla. And because I had a little crush on Thomas when he played Kevin Myers in American Pie, I knew that his mom's name was Marla. So when I saw her referred to as Karen on wiki I just had to change it because I AM A MARLA too! In looking back at how I wrote that, I obviously didn't go into a deep explanation of it. And I definetly didn't explain myself properly. Sorry for the confusion. Should I go and adjust my first edit? to explain more?

Thank you so much for your help.

Mona1975 (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, I was trying to AGF but that does change things. Melcous (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * your explanation stretches credulity and the original context of your comment certainly reads as though you are claiming to be the subject's mother, and since then you have only edited articles related to that person, their spouse, and their work. Can you please explain the discrepancy between your comment earlier today that implies the first time you ever heard of this person was when you recently went to see their movie, and your initial edit summary implying you are related to them, and your comment here over six years ago saying you were a big fan and check their article often? Melcous (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow I'm just realizing now that I'm talking to 2 people. Apologies for that. Sorry for the confusion. I went to the theater to see Thomas Nicholas' new movie Adverse. I am an avid fan of him and I know that he has worked with Brian Metcalf on a few movies. but I don't really like horror movies but now that I have seen the new movie, which is the same creative team... my opinion has changed. So If you look in my recent history I have made some edits on Brian Metcalf's page too. In fact there seems to be a similar situation with his page from back in 2018. In any case, I'm starting to feel a little embarrassed about my fan girl feelings now. I really do enjoy contributing to these few pages... and as you can see, I only just learned today that I could create a draft. I feel pretty silly for not knowing that I could do that. And the last thing I want to do is anything wrong. Sorry for all the trouble and thank you for all the help.

Mona1975 (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't find your explanation credible. Your first edit did not just say your name was the same as the subject's mother, it clearly implied that you were that person and you also inserted specific and unsourced information about the family. All your edits since have been to add promotional material about connected people, which is also pretty clear evidence of a connection. You should stop editing all articles where you have a conflict of interest and instead use the article talk pages to suggest edits. Melcous (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not buying it either. I started a COIN discussion, which also includes Mona1975's edits to the article on the spouse of Thomas Nicholas. Possibly (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't know how to use the talk pages. For instance there was another user who deleted Thomas Nicholas children's names after I found articles on People Magazine that included their names. And his son is starring a new movie. A huge movie directed by M Night. Nolan River's name was just in Rolling Stone If you watched the super bowl then you and 100M other people saw his son. So I reached out to that person and asked them why they chose to do that ... and they deleted my question... on a talk page.

I guess I'm just confused. How do you decide what pages to edit? Contributors don't get paid. so if the information I post is validated by an article. how can that be disputed? What is the purpose of Wikipedia if we can’t update accurate information? And what is the big deal because I find and cite articles to prove what I'm typing.

I'm happy to do drafts. But talk pages that get deleted seems like your some sort of gate keeper that gets to let information on a person who's work I enjoy can be wrong? I mean sure why not. What does it matter if his mom's name is wrong... who cares right? it was wrong for years. And I waited for someone to correct it... There is no clear instruction to make drafts or suggestions. Just an edit button for anyone to do.

And if my first message was a typo why didn't someone cite me as a COI in 2007. before I made 45 edits. Shoot why don't you just delete me and call his mom Karen?

And do you really think that his 64 year old mother is awake at 2am typing messages to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona1975 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ibrahima Socé Fall Wikipedia page
Hello Melcous, Thank you for your recent edit to the page of Ibrahima Soce Fall(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahima_Soc%C3%A9_Fall). I am requesting if you can review the page again and see if there are any other issues. I am new to Wikipedia and still getting up to speed with the guidelines that at times take a bit of time to understand. So most of the time I am learning along the way. Sincerely Victor Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor.Wade.Oloo (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)