User talk:Melcous/Archive 20

Monica Olvera de la Cruz Wikipedia
Hi there, I published some edits on Professor Olvera's Wikipedia page per her request, and it seems that you made some edits as well. I'm just wondering how we will be able to add what I previously wrote under the "awards" section under her picture on the right side. The professor says that her colleagues have the same awards/recognition, but doesn't understand why she is unable to have those under her name herself. For example, Samuel I. Stupp has "Elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1998), Elected members of the National Academy of Engineering (2012), Elected member of the National Academy of Sciences (2020)" which are some of the same awards/recognitions that Professor Olvera has. She asks that we keep it consistent for her and her colleagues Samuel Stupp and Sharon Glotzer, allow her to add them or remove them for all.

Thank you! Tzhangnu (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your message.
 * As you are editing at the subject's request, you have a clear conflict of interest and should follow the guidelines linked - basically this means you should not edit the article directly, but can instead suggest changes on its talk page (which can be done most simply using the Edit Request Wizard).
 * In terms of your specific question, the right hand side is an "infobox" which has specific parameters, and the "award" section is only for notable, national-level awards, not fellowships and memberships etc. These are already listed elsewhere in the article under the section Awards and honors, which is where they belong.
 * In terms of other articles, first see WP:OSE, but also if those infoboxes have information that does not belong according to the parameters, it should be removed from them.
 * Finally, please ensure that both you and the professor understand that this is not "her" page, rather it is an encyclopaedia article about her, and as such her preferences for what it looks like are not relevant. If she ever feels information on the page is inaccurate, she too is welcome to use the talk page to request changes.
 * Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Michael kasha
Hi, I would like to know why you remove Reza Islampour from doctoral advisor students? Thanks Aminbkh (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * as I explained in my edit summary, the Template:Infobox academic makes it specifically clear that this should only include doctoral students about whom a wikipedia article exists. Melcous (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Anita Mishra


The page Anita Mishra has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

"R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jay 💬 13:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks, but I'm not sure why this notification has come to me - I didn't create the article; I nominated it for deletion. Melcous (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. I realized it after the deletion, that the notification would have come to you, instead of the original page (now draft) author. Jay  💬 13:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , no worries. Melcous (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Linda Gerdner
Thanks for letting me know about this one. I've opened a new SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/CharmenderDeol as I suspect that who created the article is another sock, as well as being an undisclosed paid editor. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciate the help! Melcous (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Discouragement on Contributions
Hello Ms. Melcous, it is really sad and disappointing for me to see my edits being reverted by you. How can you say the project is paid? I have interest in history so I found the library and mentioned the references likewise. This is not fair, it is been many years since I have been contributing to Wikipedia but still my edits are not given credibility which severe discouragement for me. shahzad 18:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussayn.Shahzad (talk • contribs)
 * , every single edit you have made in the last two months has been to link to one particular website, and that website has recently been advertising to pay people to add just such links. Are you seriously trying to claim that this is just a coincidence? Stop spamming and your contributions will stop being reverted. Melcous (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You made contributions to earn money as your contributions and edits are totally of paid ones. How come you say your edits or contributions are free of cost. You are cleverly manipulating Wikipedia and pose to be a free contributor. shahzad 06:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussayn.Shahzad (talk • contribs)
 * I have never, and will never, edit wikipedia for pay. I'm happy to let my many years of contributions here speak for themselves. Please stop making baseless accusations. Melcous (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Nicolas Moussiopoulos Page
Hello Melcous,i have noticed that you have reverted the information on Moussiopoulos page. Could you please help me or either in depth inform me about the mistakes that appear in order no to be reverted? LabBuddy (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * as I noted in my edit summary, while your edit made some minor improvements, it also introduced significant problems into the article. Statements like "Professor Moussiopoulos has consulted several Greek Ministers, represented Greece in numerous international committees and has a wide research management experience" belong in a resume not an encyclopaedia article - still to specific facts that are well-sourced not broad vague statements like this. You also added other unsourced content such as that about various awards - each one needs a reliable source, if not it should not be included. Finally, you changed the formatting of the publications, which was correct was it was using the citation templates. As noted, it is better to make smaller changes, addressing one issue at a time, rather than making so many changes in one edit. Melcous (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Integrative Health and Wellbeing (IHW) Conference 2022
Hi, Hope that you are doing fine. Thank you for reviewing this article and sharing your suggestions. I have added more references to make it more reliable and notable as per Wikipedia's policies. Kindly review it now and help me to move it to the main space. Tea18450 (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * as noted in the edit summary, when you believe it is ready, you should submit it for review using the Articles for Creation process. Thank you Melcous (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I am not able to see the 'Submit the Draft'. So could you please guide me how to submit for the Articles for Creation process. Thank you.Tea18450 (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * the instructions are at WP:AFC. Melcous (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your detailed instructions. I completed and submitted the article for the review. Tea18450 (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

COI Notice
Not sure why I have a message left on my user page about COI and the updates that were made. The updates made are verifiable, source linked, and do not contain anything improper or incorrect about the subject matter. I'm not paid by Larry Keel and do not have a COI as an editor of that page. Please don't harrase me further about fixing poor grammar and ensuring proper information is on that page, as I intend on updating it more in the future as a fan of Larry's. Floydiantrooper (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

And did you reset all the work I did on that page? Wtf... It was finally looking like a decent wiki page. Floydiantrooper (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * if there is no conflict of interest just clearly say so, but regardless, the content you added was blatantly promotional. If you think unsourced phrases like "Some have noted that it is difficult to pin down a genre to describe Larry and his touring act, but it is often described as profound and psychedelic, intergalactic jazzgrass, and newgrass. Buy the ticket, take the ride." make a "decent wiki page" then you have seriously misunderstood what this project is about. All content here must be written neutrally and properly verified by reliable, independent, secondary sources. Melcous (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will also note that this edit summary saying edits were made "to go more properly along with what Larry wanted to see" does suggest at least an apparent, if not an actual, WP:COI (i.e. an editor editing at the request/desire of the subject). Melcous (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This is an ongoing page edit I'm working on to expand and make it fully fleshed out. There will be further additions, with more linked sources and quotes, as it goes. Don't a pud about it.

You removed all edits, not just the one you referenced just now. I can amd will, as I edit that section further, link to those quotes and such for that area. Get over yourself. Floydiantrooper (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Melcous!


Happy New Year! Melcous, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 04:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 04:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
Hello , The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day. won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
 * Backlog
 * 2022 Awards

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from  to  '''

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as and  have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Timeline of major crimes in Australia
I don't think it's appropriate to remove sourced information from list articles due to them not having main articles written about them; as you did here. Their placement in the list is the primary place where they are discussed. So, removing them from the list removes them entirely from Wikipedia. Such edits can be interpreted as vandalism. The list specifies "major crimes", but possessing a main article is not a definitive qualifier of whether a crime should be considered major or not. A crime can be major even without possessing a main article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * there is a valid discussion to be had about this, but as soon as you start claiming that this is "vandalism" you make it very difficult for anyone to want to engage with you. My edit was clearly not vandalism, and calling it such is entirely unhelpful and unconstructive. Please don't do that again. Melcous (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edit was reverted (by someone else, not me), so there's clearly the beginnings of an edit war taking place as a result of your edit. Indeed, my initial impression was that the edit was vandalism, but then I checked your profile and I can see that you are clearly an established user, which is why I said that it "looks like vandalism" rather than "is vandalism". I am assuming that your intentions were positive, even though, from first glance, it does look like vandalism. If you were an IP user or a low-edits user, I would think it was vandalism. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , even if I were an IP or new user, you would be wrong. See WP:VD which says (in bold): Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. An edit that removes specific items from a list giving a clear policy reason in the edit summary for why is not vandalism, no matter how much you disagree with it or who makes it. Melcous (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edit didn't look like it was improving Wikipedia. You cited "no articles", but, as I've pointed out on the article's talk page, there actually isn't any strict protocol in place that specifies this rule. So, as far as I can tell, it's a rule that you've decided to take upon yourself to enforce. From my point of view, your edit was removing sourced info that, as far as I can tell, was perfectly reasonable to be included within the article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * and again "didn't look (to you) like it was improving Wikipedia" is not the same as vandalism. Nor was there edit warring (that would have been if I had reverted the editor again, which I chose not to do, even though I disagreed with them). Both here and on the talk page, your comments have overstated things and cast aspersions, neither of which is helpful. The goal is to have a constructive discussion in order to reach consensus. Please kindly do so on the talk page of the article, and not here. Thank you Melcous (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edits are treading a fine line between "being not vandalism" and "looking like vandalism". If your edit looks like vandalism, then I suggest putting a bit more effort in to make it clear that it isn't. As I said, you provided an edit summary with a reason for your edit, but you didn't elaborate in much detail, and you didn't directly reference any kind of clear policy (either by linking to an actual "WP" policy or by linking to some kind of article-specific policy). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not understand what vandalism is. Please read WP:VD again and familiarise yourself with it. And I have kindly asked you above not to continue this conversation here. Focus on having a constructive discussion about article content on the article talk page. Melcous (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Arthur Lankester
The gift that keeps on giving? That class suffered from serious lack of participation, and this student had Dr. Arthur Colborne Lankester listed for their project. I don't know what happened, why they continued under a different (and more correct name); perhaps they learned about article naming and never corrected the info on that education page, making it even harder for the professor. I also think they likely moved it back to article space because of the assignment. I'm going to move it back, of course, but I would hate to move-protect it. The editor might well end up blocked, though I doubt they'll care. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Malay titles
Hello Melcous, I need to discuss about the removing of honorific prefixes from the article of Zulkarnain Hanafi. Yang Berhormat itself is equivalent to The Honorable while Dato Paduka have similar usage to Sir (awarded with orders). As I am confused on how it couldn't be used as the prefix. See Anwar Ibrahim for example. Thank you. Pang (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for your message. My reading of MOS:CREDENTIALS would be that none of these titles should be used in the opening sentence of the article, as they were. In the infobox, certainly Dr and Haji should not be included. I personally would not include any (hence my removal of all of them) but if you believe there is a title that has that equivalence, I would not have a problem with you restoring just that in the infobox. What do you think? Melcous (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree on the removal of Dr and Haji from the infobox. Titles would also be removed from opening sentence from now on. Many thanks for the feedback. Pang (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Carey Baptist Grammar School
Excuse me Melcous, but some of your removals of my further editions have been wrongfully done and lazily been removed without properly looking at the sources that have been properly cited and were written indepenly of the School, has been removed with the associated info. I understand and except the use of Mr and Dr. But other pieces of information that I have added in include the sources for the Principals and table for the VCE results is totally unacceptable to remove. I would hope that this can be reversed to some extent. I thank you for your time and understanding that you are just trying to help. However, this particular occasion in regarding some info included was not called for and harmful. Regards, Carey3146 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message . As I explained in my edit summaries, content sourced to a school calendar is not what we are looking for - you need reliable, independent, secondary sources. I also do not think VCE results belong in the article, but you are welcome to start a discussion on the talk page and explain why you think they do, and see if you can gain consensus from other editors. And yes, there were a couple of references for the principals that I removed because it was difficult to see these in the middle of the other large block of edits. Those with independent sources can be restored, as I see you have already done for one. Melcous (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Carey Baptist Grammar School again
RE. I was wondering exactly the same thing. Meters (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, I think the explanations are now stretching credulity. Melcous (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. My AGF has stretched past its breaking point. Meters (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Australian Wars
Hello! Your submission of The Australian Wars at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gazozlu (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will respond there. Melcous (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Bruce D. Marshall
You edited this page to say "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject..." However, the number of citations used are numerous and from academic professionals representing a wide variety of views and institutions. The journal Modern Theology published an entire symposium based on Marshall's book Trinity and Truth (https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0025.00144). Whatever connection the original author may or may not have to the subject in question, the content of the article is nevertheless diversely sourced and well-grounded. If you disagree, for what specifically are you looking? 2605:59C8:6052:A610:30DA:35F4:CFCA:EE36 (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are reviews of his writing. But the article is a biography, and the only source to the biographical information about him is a profile from his workplace. Another independent source is preferred. Melcous (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Identical information is available in the Festschrift published in his honor. Would citing that, coupled with the information published on the R1 university website for which he works (already cited) suffice? 2605:59C8:6052:A610:50D4:B296:66C7:2367 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Help about my article to revert the name and i need help about revision
Regarding to the name Changed can you help me to revert the name for the article Mohamed Mahran to Mohamed Mahmoud Mahran again Or if u can tell me how, because i tryed to do move that, but no way, also if u can do revision for the article i would appreciate that. Kindly note that i created it with name: Mohamed Mahmoud Mahran - professor of public international law and secretary General of the International Committee for the Defense of Water Resources Because there are other person who named Mohamed mahran (actor) you can check sources from Google news Mohamed mahran (International Law)

Thanks
 * you created a draft and then also created an identical copy in the main space that did not demonstrate readiness to be in the encyclopedia yet. I moved this to draft as well. You should work on getting whichever one of the drafts you prefer edited properly and then submit it for review using the WP:AFC process. Please do not try to move it again. Melcous (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That's right and unintentionally because iam New and am trying, am sorry for any disturbance, i appreciate your reply Thanks for your fast replay and your importance Best regards, Darkiy (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Malicious Editing
Your reputations as a malicious and pointless editor spreads I see... regarding your continual bombardment of my owm edits I see no reason to revert my edits made on George Hay (minister) etc. as they are correctly sourced and non-contentious... and indeed the likely existing error in the Hay article can be tracked to the records of two assemblies that year. Are you stating that any of this is wrong? You seem to pretend to have some extended knowledge of the Church of Scotland but all I can see is ongoing religious misunderstanding on your part/--Stephencdickson (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , once again, as multiple other editors have also pointed out to you, you need to be clear on what original research is: it explicitly includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Including your own editorial commentary of any kind is not ok, and you have been editing here long enough and have been pointed to this enough times that you should know this. As soon as you are writing content within an article that uses words like "Note," or "implying" as you have done, you are inserting your own analysis. And you have also been told multiple times not to use unreliable sources like geni, but you continue to do so over and over again. Just stop it and then your edits won't get reverted. Melcous (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

What a strange conclusion. There is no opinion in the edit, it is clearly sourced and can be verified from that source. But I see you do similar vindictive edits to a wide spectrum of articles. I continue to believe it is you not I who is bigotted and intent on a series of bizarre edits on church articles.--Stephencdickson (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * when your edit says that a source implies something, as you did at Charles Hamilton Fasson, you are by definition including something that is not stated by the sources. The fact that you appear unwilling to acknowledge this demonstrates either that you have not taken time to read and understand the WP:OR policy, or that you are deliberately violating it. Either way, you should stop doing so. Melcous (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

But, if aggieved, surely the correct edit would be to strip back to a format of "source x says y" --Stephencdickson (talk)

BTR Employees
Hi @Melcous, I’m just wondering why you have deleted cited information about the number of employees and profit of the company from 1995, when the company in the form of BTR plc was defunct or closed in 1999, rather than 2014. Is it possible to reverse this as the information that I cited is in fact, reliable? Thanks. Carey3146 (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , sorry I did misread the intro with my edit comment about 2014, but still, why would a 1995 source that is unavailable and therefore unverifiable be better than the current source that is there? Melcous (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. But BTR did merge and thus became redundant in 1999. So, in comparison, 1995 to 1999 is a closer period than the 2014 source has it? This seems more reasonable? Carey3146 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by ‘unavailable’ and ‘unverifiable’ with regard to the source that I had earlier provided in the article? Carey3146 (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , 1995 is before it wound up so would reference a particular point in time. The later source could potentially provide a more accurate overview. On the question of availability/verifiability for other editors, can you point to where that source was accessed and/or is available? Melcous (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You say ‘could’ which refers to saying that it is not definitively a ‘is’. The source I provide is a certain number that is only a three year difference from when BTR collapsed. The idea that the number 85,400 is a ‘overview’ is not correct as BTR has had varied number of employees, so having the most up to date number as recently as 1995 is not just okay, it is quite good to have. In response to your question, I have access to a hard copy of various ‘The Daily Telegraph’ newspapers, including this one, in which I cited. I hope that we can use the number of employees and profits stat, as it was according to the 1995 reference. Thanks. Carey3146 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for The Australian Wars
BorgQueen (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for a serious sad topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reinstating the cn tag
The editor concerned appears to display competence until you look deeper, when it feels as if their intention is to drive a coach and horses through WP:NOTMEMORIAL, my good faith notwithstanding 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Tom McLeish
Hi. I added in Tom McLeish's death dates as we have received notification this morning (I am a Director at the Royal Society where he was a Fellow). He was suffering from inoperable pancreatic cancer. Point of Presence talk  12:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's sad to hear, but to be included in the wikipedia article it requires a reliable source. Wikipedia is not the news, so it doesn't matter if if takes a day or so for a source to publish the information and then it can be updated here. Melcous (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. Understood. It looks like we have updated our website now and one of my colleagues has updated the article. Thanks. Point of Presence  talk  14:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
Just a note of thanks for your explanation. Too many egos it seems in editor world who feel they do not have to explain their actions. I appreciate the comments and thought you should know. In some cases the external links are sources to try and firm up support for the statement. Drkahless (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries . If a link is a source that supports a statement in an article, then it should be used in a reference/footnote (see WP:CS) rather than as an external link. Thanks Melcous (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Note, since the filer didn't post here
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Appeal of Wikipedia Image deletion. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a courtesy note, since the filer did not alert you with a talk page notice. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)