User talk:Melcous

Hi, Melcous,

Writing to you regarding the following.

12:55, 19 November 2024 Melcous talk contribs  8,666 bytes +181  Undid revision 1258382391 by Georgymm (talk) An editor with an apparent WP:COI should not be the one removing these maintenance templates (particularly not when the COI question on their talk page has not been addressed) undothank Tag: Undo 

Can you check and help us remove the BLP maintenance tag. Since you feel I have a COI. Or should take it up with the admin. Kindly advice. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgymm (talk • contribs) 07:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Melcous. I noticed that you have the page mover right; might you be willing to move Neville Lancelot Goddard to Neville Goddard per WP:COMMONNAME? I'd like to do it myself but it's obstructed by the target article being a redirect. He is not commonly referred to with his middle name included. Feel free to examine the article's sources to verify for yourself. Thanks. Left guide (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Left guide, I'm quite new to page mover rights, so this was my first round robin move. Hopefully it was all done ok - let me know if you think I've missed anything? Melcous (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks perfect, thank you so much for helping! :) Left guide (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you're well?

I disagree with the notion that the information you keep removing is not notable, the boat race is a televised national event therefore the names of participants who went to University College is notable information for an encyclopaedia.

Furthermore I do not understand the continued removal especially when many other Oxford College Boat Clubs have had this information on their pages for many years. Any further information you could share would be much appreciated, thank you! OxfordRowing (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OxfordRowing: thanks for discussing this, but the place to do so is on the article talk page, particularly as I am not the only editor who has disagreed with the inclusion of this content. Consensus needs to be sought before it could be put into the article again. But to your questions here briefly, the boat race being nationally televised might be a good argument for why the race is notable, but has nothing to do with whether it is ok to list non-notable participants. Also see WP:OSE which is always an argument to avoid. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Melcous, just a comment about your recent edit. You just reverted the whole thing rather than actually looking through it. This therefore reverted the addition of some third party citations which were aiming to start fixing the issue that you have flagged the page with.

I would also encourage a discussion on the talk page of the article as these changes really do bring the article in line with established consensus for other clubs and therefore should be allowed to remain. Please use the talk page to explain your reasons for disagreement so that I can address them. Thank you OxfordRowing (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Melcous,

I have edited the languages and tone of the content as it has required for wiki page. I request you to kindly revisit the page Deshkal Society as you have added the ADS TAG there. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Melcous, I request you to kindly visit the oage again and remove the ad tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePerfectYellow (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePerfectYellow: I revisited the page after your previous message, and I do not believe the issue has been resolved. The lead, and the the entire article, read as if they are written to promote the society and its work, not from a WP:NPOV. Melcous (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Melcous

Thanks for your valuable comment. I will re-edit this page and let you know the update here. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that you placed a template on the article indicating several issues, and I would appreciate some help and clarification.

I didn't understand why the article was marked as "written like a resume" – isn't this the typical style for biographical entries?

Regarding the "notability guideline" – a notability discussion was held on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and many editors argued that the subject is notable enough. Isn't this sufficient to justify translating the article into English?

I would appreciate guidance on how to improve the article. I saw that you have created quite a few biographies on Wikipedia, and I would love your help to advance in this area :)

Thank you,

אייל (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi אייל and thanks for your message. Having an article or discussion on another language wikipedia does not mean something is necessarily notable here - see WP:OTHERLANGS. Notability needs to be demonstrated according to the criteria here. On the Resume like tag, I added that before a number of changes were made and some of them have addressed the issues so I will remove that. Thank you Melcous (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Thanks, really appreciate your help... אייל (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Melcous

I have added the required references and paragraph of Publications. I don't think the comment you make on his Notability is right. He is from Sri Lanka and have done anthropological work in South Asia. Kindly reconsider this and remove the tag. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePerfectYellow:, Notability is not a matter of what you or I think. It needs to be demonstrated that he meets WP:NPROF, which is very specific, or other notability criteria. Please read through this, and then I would suggest putting on the talk page of the article a succinct explanation of which of the listed criteria you believe he meets, with sources to verify that. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this WP:NPROF. You need to understand how anthropology works and practices. They don't work in bulk like the other academician or subject experts. Here writing one article takes a minimum of two years because they adopt ethnography as a method of collecting data. You may not find Pradeep's works in terms of quantity as compared of others but the impact of his writing is so large. His writing on violence is a core subject in many anthropology departments.

I again repeat myself that reconsider all this. Also here, in the current edit, I have added content with references to reputed libraries and publications. Sources are from Jstor, google book, and Libraries.   ThePerfectYellow (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePerfectYellow: and again, discussion about this belongs on the article's talk page, not here. My understanding about anthropology is not the issue here, WP:NPROF applies to all academic disciplines. If you can demonstrate with sources how he meets one of the listed criteria there, please do so ... on the article talk page. Melcous (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Melcous

I request you to kindly, check the talk page of Pradeep Jeganathan. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers I noticed that you flagged the article Jordan Schmidt in May 2024, indicating “"this article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments." I'm curious, which editor out of the 128 did you suspect was a professional Wikipedia writer, given that the article was created in 2014? Can you please disclose the source of this accusation? Michael Jannetta (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mtjannetta: due to the pattern of editing plus some off-wiki evidence, I left COI notices on the user talk pages for User:Josephchudyk and User:Mark (daschent), and a paid warning on the user talk page for User:Chelseadelmege. Melcous (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Could you please help me build my understanding of the "pattern of editing" you see in this article? I do not want to fall into the same trap. I decided to edit the Jordan Schmidt page and corresponding Discography as one of my pet projects. I can assure you I am not a paid professional; I am just a little grampa living in Nebraska and needing hobbies.

I corresponded with User: Mark (daschent) (Mark Schmidt) the other day. He has no idea who User Josephchudyk (Joseph Chudyk) and Chelseadelmege (Chelsea D. Smith) are. They do not work for, with, or are related to Jordan Schmidt. They are among many people who like editing a country star's Wikipedia page. If they are paid professionals, so be it. Jordan Schmidt did not hire them.

Mark Schmidt (Mark (daschent)) is a very inexperienced Wikipedia user. He is not a paid professional Wikipedia writer. He works with his son, not for his son–Jordan Schmidt. He has no idea what a COI is or where his talk page is or what to do if he received a COI notice. His contributions have mainly been in adding data to Jordan's Discography. When he edited different sections of the article, his goal was not to intentionally publish content that others might see as promotional. In fact, other Wikipedians quickly corrected this unintentional connection.

He is caught up in the dilemma of writing about a living celebrity. If we are writing about a living actor or songwriter, listing their accomplishments, i.e. movies and songs, could be viewed as self-promoting, yet a failure to list them might lessen their nobility status. Where Mark listed an excessive number of songs and TV placements, users quickly modified the verbiage. The songs listings have been moved to the Discography page, and their numbers have been adjusted accordingly. Mark will continue to add to the Discography page. I don't see how adding factual data to a page is a COI infraction.

Once again, I would like to ask if we can remove the

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (May 2024)

tag. If you disagree, could we elicit a second opinion from one of your fellow editors?

Thanks for your indulgence

Michael Jannetta (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mtjannetta, you need to be very careful (as do I) about WP:OUTING editors. I am curious as to how you have corresponded with User:Mark (daschent), as you have not done so using the talk pages here on wikipedia which are specifically for that purpose.

To your questions,

• WP:PAID does not just cover what you have called paid professional Wikipedia writers, but also specifically says Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. Again from off-wiki evidence that is not hard to find, it appears that each of those editors may fit that bill in some way.

Once again, I do not know of any instance where User Josephchudyk and Chelseadelmege were compensated directly by Jordan Schmidt or the organization he works for to add line items to Jordan Schmidt’s discography and awards section. This conclusion was reached by discussion with Mark Schmidt. Why anyone would compensate individuals for adding line items to awards and Discography is beyond me. Let's say they were paid by someone other than Jordan Schmidt or his affiliated organization. In that case, it is irrelevant to your flag since your citation states, “are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions.”

• If one of those editors has disclosed to you that they are editing about a family member, I would advise them that that is by definition a conflict interest and as such they are requested to not directly edit such articles at all. If they want to contribute to such articles, they can learn to use the talk page to do so. Otherwise they can leave it to non-conflicted editors. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but this is an encyclopedia not a personal website, and writing neutrally is a core pillar of this project, which it is almost impossible for family members to do.

I have been friends with Mark Schmidt for decades. Our means of communication include text, email, and phone. I highly doubt we will transition our discussions to a Wikipedia talk page after all this time—it seems impersonal. It appears that we're crossing into personal territory. Despite being Jordan's father, he can definitely maintain a neutral perspective. As mentioned earlier, any contributions he made to Jordan Schmidt that seemed promotional were swiftly removed by other editors. The majority of his contribution has been in expanding the discography. The process of adding these items is relatively straightforward, ensuring no personal bias is involved.

Similar to the other two users, Mark has primarily edited the Discography, RIAA Certifications, or Related Awards sections in the Jordan Schmidt article. Can a conflict of interest arise from adding a publicly available award citation to a pre-existing chart in a Wikipedia article? It's unclear to me how someone can breach one of Wikipedia's central pillars in this way.

• As for who the other two editors are, I would again warn you about WP:OUTING, but am also curious how you are so confident you know who they are. Do you have any connection to any of them?

I am not confident who these two users are, but this is how I arrived at my conclusion. I took their usernames, i.e., User Josephchudyk and Chelseadelmege, and deduced they were created using their first and last names. I split user IDs into first and last names and searched the outcome on Google. I shared the hits in this thread. I wasn't purposely outing them, just curious as a researcher about their identity. I reiterate, it was not my intention to “out” these folks, merely to see who they are and if Jordan Schmidt has any connection to them. He does not. I want to clarify that I am not connected or related to these individuals.

• Finally, by "pattern of editing" I mean the fact that these editors have all exclusively edited the same related articles. Most people who edit wikipedia for a hobby get involved in editing across a broad range of articles. Most people with a COI or who are paid do not. That is obviously not proof of anything, but given the context here, means there is an issue that needs to be addressed. So no, I do not believe the tag should be removed. You are always welcome to seek an opinion from another editor. Melcous (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This text is differentTo wrap it up, if my understanding of your compensation flag is accurate. Is it reasonable to state-

In America (Australia too), individuals are considered innocent unless proven guilty beyond any doubt. Your flag primarily relies on a "pattern of editing. Would it be accurate to say that your perception of this pattern is based on your subjective viewpoint? Can we assume you chose this country star because you think he has enough money to pay people to edit his Wikipedia page? To the best of my knowledge, you haven't accused any country superstars of the same charge, is that correct? If I'm mistaken, please correct me. I want to confirm that you won't remove this flag based on your subjective opinion, even though the editors' contributions were mostly black and white and not open to any interpretation or personal bias.}}

Thanks

Michael Jannetta (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtjannetta:, as you have a personal relationship with a family member of the subject of the article, it would seem you too have a clear conflict of interest. Your own personal discussions with this person about who is and is not paid by whom are not relevant here, nor is his subjective opinion about whether he believes he can maintain a neutral perspective. Please see again the very first paragraph of that behavioural guideline, which says Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. Also, this is not a court of law: there is no "presumption of innoence" nor am I "accusing" anyone of anything. This is a website that has guidelines on editors' behaviour, that those who sign up to edit here agree by doing so to abide by. My suggestion would be that both of you need to step away from articles that you are connected to by virtue of your relationships, and allow the normal process of wikipedia to take its course regarding what content is or isn't in the article or what maintenance templates are attached to it. There is no deadline here. Melcous (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add, you stated above I reiterate, it was not my intention to “out” these folks, merely to see who they are and if Jordan Schmidt has any connection to them. He does not. (emphasis added) If these names do represent such people, this is false. A google search of these names indicates that there are relatively easily discoverable connections to Schmidt. Melcous (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must thank you for your actions on the article, Raphael James. I am focused on learning more about encyclopedic tone. I love biographies and I work hard on my articles with the desire to enrich this wiki project, so your revert made in good faith is respectable. Cheers. Royalrumblebee (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Barnstar
		For your hard (and frequently thankless) work in rooting out COI/undisclosed paid edits and ensuring users comply with our policies. Much appreciated! Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know about this as a courtesy. I'm not sure the article meets WP:NORG per WP:NOBLE, but I leave it up to you to decide whether you want to re-add the {{third party}} template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your suggested edits to the Saint Joseph University of Beirut page. However, I am unable to understand why you propose deleting entire paragraphs that are well-sourced, instead of making slight corrections or pointing out specific violations of Wikipedia policy. This page has never been contentious before, and I am confused because the paragraphs in question are well-written and properly sourced.

Thank you very much for your attention. Naxh (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could I ask why you removed her brother Steve? Fulvio (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fulvio as I noted in my edit summaries, I initially removed his name from the infobox because that is only for people with wikipedia articles and there was no link to an article. I then made another edit two minutes later after I discovered there is a wikipedia article about him, replacing his name and adding the wikilink that should have been included when he was initially added. I'm not sure what the issue is? Melcous (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There is no issue, was just wondering because I’ve been away a long time and it came as a surprise is all. Fulvio (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete things in field that you have no familiarity with. Just add a tag of "citation needed" is enough. Tamle2nd (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamle2nd no, that is not how wikipedia works. Content that is completely unsourced, including a list of names with absolutely zero evidence of notability, can be removed by any editor. Melcous (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith of completion. You can talk about it if you are not sure. And you certainly are no where near the level familiarity of the field to be sure of anything in that article. Your action is equivalent of saying "I don't know anything about this therefore it's not true". Your reason of "Zero evidence of notability" for deletion is laughable as you would have no idea who are impactful in the area that you don't know. Zero evidence that YOU know of. And you don't know jack about that area. So again, please don't do ignorant edit, that's just as bad as vandalism. For field you don't know, you can: a) add "citation need" or b) start talking/asking about it. Tamle2nd (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamle2nd you have no idea what I am or am not familiar with (or any other editor here). "Zero evidence" refers to zero evidence being provided on wikipedia for the information. It doesn't matter what you or I know of, it matters what is included in the article. If you can't provide reliable sources at the time of including content in order to verify it, you shouldn't include it, it is that simple. And please stop assuming ownership of this article. Melcous (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, try to prove me wrong that you actually know about Nishio Aikido!!! Anyway... you edited the article again. I guess this is just the way it's going to be. Tamle2nd (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the way wikipedia works. Any editor can edit any article at any time. Melcous (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you will not try to prove me wrong about you don't know jack about things that you edited. Tamle2nd (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in trying to prove anything to you. Stop behaving like a child and get on with making the encyclopedia better. Your edits to random articles I have created are vandalism and pointy. Stop it or you will be reported. Melcous (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I EXPECT you to report my coming actions. Let's see who is better at complying with Wikipedia guidelines. Tamle2nd (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are not interested in proving anything but you are interested in claiming that I don't know. Funny how that works. Tamle2nd (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In selected publications, I wonder whether the first edition of Salt Light and a City should be removed, and the two volumes in the second edition added back in. What do you think? My reasoning:

1. The first edition is discontinued (no longer published).
2. The second edition is still in publication, and the two volumes of this second edition include a book never published before (i.e. Volume 2 of the 2nd edition on Majority World ecclesiology).
3. That Volume 2 of the 2nd edition on Majority World ecclesiology is a contribution to Hill's work on Majority World theology.

BuckyRodgers (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BuckyRodgers I'm not too fussed either way - the key point is that "selected publications" should be a representative list of significant works that give an overview of the person's works, not an exhaustive list of everything published. I would ask though, given your edit history, do you have any connection with the subject of the article, and if so, have you read the conflict of interest guidelines? Thank you Melcous (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No connection. Just an admirer of Hill’s writing. Thank you.

(I should have asked this question on the page’s talk, not here. My apologies). BuckyRodgers (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Melcous

I added a paragraph related to Prince Rashed Al-Khuzai page and that paragraph was related to a poetry written by his grandson Yazeed Al Rashed Al Khuzai. Mr. Yazeed Al Rashed Al Khuzai was mentioned in the article of Rashed Al-Khuzai since many years under the section of death and legacy so please assist if possible to link the article of Yazeed Al Rashed Al Khuzai to the article of Prince Rashed Al-Khuzai

Best regards Khalid Al-Saud1 Khalid Al-Saud1 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Al-Saud1 As noted in my edit summary, I removed that paragraph because it did not abide by wikipedia's required neutral point of view. I now see that the article you linked to is under deletion discussion, so I suggest you wait to see the outcome of that before reinserting any links to it. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for response Khalid Al-Saud1 (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see the article's talk page for a discussion I've started about Hill's ministerial status as a pastor. Unless there is any credible evidence to the contrary, his statement that he is currently an accredited Baptist pastor should be accepted as factual. This is very unlikely to be something that he would not be truthful about. We also have no reason to think he hasn't been ordained as a Baptist minister and there is no strict requirement that this must be verified by an independent or recent source. Quizical (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrea Orcel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Institutional Investor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold J. Dunlap 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) 01:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting postnoms where there is no infobox! This removes information and is not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POSTNOM is clear that these should not be in the lead sentence; whether or not there is an infobox is irrelevant. If it is important enough and well sourced, it can be included elsewhere in the article. Melcous (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that POSTNOM is very recent. Until then postnoms were included in the first line and may well not be mentioned anywhere else because they didn't need to be. You are therefore removing information that is not visible anywhere else, which is helpful to no one. May I suggest that common sense should prevail over dogma! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is common sense? It is usually a matter of opinion that is assumed to be shared but may not actually be. My own opinion would be that if the information is not mentioned/sourced/explained elsewhere in the article then it probably shouldn't have been in the lead sentence in the first place, even before MOS:POSTNOM provided clear consensus. :) Melcous (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, when there is an infobox, could you please incorporate the post nom template into it, rather than removing the info entirely. Jevansen (talk)

Fine. You clearly want to create more work for other editors. Thanks for your co-operation! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can "clearly" impute my intentions from a difference of opinion in interpretation of the MOS here, but there's really no need for the sarcasm. Thanks Melcous (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the sarcasm. But I'm afraid you have made a lot of work by deleting this vital information without including it in an infobox. Also, incidentally, please note that WP:CREDENTIALS is generally only considered to apply to the first line of the article. It does not apply to infoboxes, where it is completely usual to include ranks and honorifics of various kinds to indicate correct style for the individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the apology, thanks. I was not intending to create work - my view would be that if it is vital information it would be already included in the article itself, but I understand you see it differently. I have not made edits to infoboxes other than where academic credentials were included. In my read of MOS:CREDENTIAL , academic credentials are treated differently to other postnoms, and should not be used as postnominal letters within a biography about that person (Avoid this practice otherwise, with the exception being in other articles) but should be instead included in prose (or e.g. in the education parameter of an infobox). That is what I have always seen and done even before the change to MOS:POSTNOM. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain your rationale for the removal of his academic qualifications? MrArmstrong2 (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrArmstrong2, Please see WP:POSTNOM (which I linked to in my edit summary) which clearly says: post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article. The qualifications are still mentioned in the article, I simply removed them from the lead sentence. Melcous (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melcous,

I noticed that you have added some issues to a page I recently updated (Barry Gusterson) and just wanted some clarification on how to resolve them if you are able to provide that?

You have flagged the article as an autobiography or having been edited by someone connected to the subject, I was wondering how you came to that conclusion. I edited the article extensively and have no affiliation or connection to Gusterson. A member of my family works in a similar field to him, and so I knew where best to look for citations or references, but neither myself nor said family member personally knows or has communicated with Gusterson. My editing of the page was done as a practical learning exercise as I was interested in cleaning up older out of date articles in the related field, Gusterson was picked as I easily found information on him and there was enough information there for me to have a rough template to work off. If there is anything I can do to fix the article and to avoid this tag on any possible future changes, please let me know.

You have also flagged the article as being a BLP with too many primary sources. Could you clarify this? I used a number of secondary sources, including news and web articles, throughout the article. As far as I can tell the only primary sources used were relevant scientific papers by Gusterson, for which I am not sure there is an appropriate secondary source. This prevalence of scientific papers within the research section is also based similar behaviour in other biographic articles of people in scientific fields.

Alongside this you seem to have removed a list of credentials/PostNoms from this page, I am unsure why these were removed, nor how they should be changed to be readded. (U Karim (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Hi U Karim, I didn't actually add those tags to the article, I restored them after they were removed because I didn't believe the issues had been resolved. They were originally added by DESiegel way back in 2014 after a person claiming to be the subject had edited the article. That is a long time ago and so I am happy to remove the autobiography tag. However, the primary sources one is because they vast majority of references in the article are to things written by Gusterson rather than written about him, or are from sources connected to him (e.g. workplaces or bios). See WP:RS for more information. I remove the list of degree post-nominals per the Manual of Style (MOS:CREDENTIALS) - these should instead be included in prose within the article with a secondary source, which I note some of them already are. Thanks Melcous (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melcous, thank you for your help here. I have reviewed the WP:RS which you provided, along with a number of similar articles (the biographies of related figures and notable scientists in the field of Biology e.g. Paul Nurse, Francis Crick and Karen Vousden). Based on having reviewed these I have removed the BLP primary sources flag originally added in 2014. I outline my reasoning below:

I have removed the flag from this article as the majority of the primary sources referenced within the article are to peer-reviewed papers from reputable sources with complete citation indices themselves. This is based on what I understand of the reliability of peer-reviewed scientific papers from WP:RS.

Alongside this, no inference is being made on said sources, as they are being used solely to highlight the research history of the article subject. Any biographical information is pulled from majority secondary or tertiary sources (news articles, awards lists, general organisational histories and overviews).

This breakdown of source type and use seems typical of Biographies within Science and Academia, especially within the Biological sciences subsection. (Based on the examples Paul Nurse, Francis Crick and Karen Vousden) U Karim (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melcous, I don't have the energy or availability to take this on much more, but would you mind taking a deeper look at this user's edits? They've done a great deal of direct editing in mainspace pertaining to topics they are being paid to edit, with minimal oversight thus far. I weeded out some of the obvious paid COI spam, but I suspect there may be more. The user seems to have published articles directly into mainspace pertaining to their business interests as well. I think the situation merits closer inspection and a possible trip to COIN. cc @Netherzone and Graywalls: Left guide (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you remove postnominals, please make sure that the content is provided elsewhere in the article. You removed the "DL" which showed that Ann Limb is a deputy lieutenant. That is a serious biographical fact about her, and I've now provided a source for it. Yes, whoever added the "DL" should also have added a sourced statement about it, but that doesn't justify removing that information from her article. At the least you could have added something like "She is a deputy lieutenant {{cn}}".

I'm sorry that I wasn't aware at the time of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies, but please note that it doesn't say "removing post-nominals" but "moving post-nominals... to article bodies". Please abide by that. Thanks. PamD 13:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to take this into account, PamD, but note that while as you have pointed out, the discussion on the talk page about the proposal talks about "moving" post nominals, the actual guideline at WP:POSTNOM (which is what I have responded to and would think most editors would assume is what should be "abided by") simply says post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But in removing those postnominals you are removing content from the article, so please do not do so without replacing that content elsewhere in the article. The fact that the "DL" was placed, correctly at the time, in what is now the "wrong" place according to WP:POSTNOM does not mean that it should be removed from the article completely as you did. We're not talking about the letters as such, but the information conveyed by them: "DL" equates to "She is a deputy lieutenant" (and is sourced by many of the existing references, as can be seen from their titles (like this one), though I found a more specific one.) PamD 21:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I take your point (mine was more about what editors are expected to follow - guidelines v discussion behind them). But man, that was sure a lot of work that was being done by two little letters! Melcous (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template's documentation includes (highlighting per original):

This tag is not generally used to notify readers that an article appears to be partially or wholly autobiographical...

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning...

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks Pigsonthewing, I have added the more specific template autobiography as the COI template says to in the ellided wording above. Just to note, I did not originally place the tag, that was an IP editor who also started the COIN discussion. My apologies for assuming a link to the COIN discussion was sufficient. Melcous (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melcous, I do not understand the purpose of your edit: Turner was Ray's first doctoral student, followed by Bodenhausen then Morris. Levitt was not in the early group. The reference to Turner's thesis was given correctly - unlike that for Bodenhausen. Hence the order and referencing of your list is anomalous. {Infobox Academic} may be used but is not required. Let me know if you need any further information to stop re-editing. Regards, Prof Deltoid (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Deltoid The purpose of the edit is that non-notable people should not be listed in infoboxes. As Template:Infobox academic clearly says, the doctoral students parameter is only for those with wikipedia articles. Melcous (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it - but the omission makes a mess of the section 'Back to Oxford' since his research students working on two-dimensional NMR were led by Turner. Prof Deltoid (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Deltoid it literally makes zero difference to that section, as none of the students are mentioned there by name - and it is completely separate from the infobox anyway. What that section does need is reliable, independent, secondary sources. Melcous (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. DOI 10.1063/1.433079 might suit. And it would be clearer to the occasional academic browser (self) if the infobox referred to *Notable* research students since it looks like a complete list unless you dive into the rules. Prof Deltoid (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Melcous. We interacted here previously. I have worked on the draft in my userspace, put the article in mainspace, and copied and pasted the talk section from draftspace. Do you have any concerns with the notability of the article? I feel like it meets WP:GNG. Since you previously draftified the article I thought I'd reach out. I'll note you recommended "WP:AFC to submit for review" previously. I didn't take that recommendation because I went from userspace to mainspace without using draftspace. Despite that path, is WP:AFC still an avenue worth exploring at this time? (I've never used it despite authoring tens of other articles.) Thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biosthmors, thanks for your message. I do still have concerns about the notability of the article, and as I said previously, I would have strongly recommended you use the WP:AFC process to obtain review from other editors to establish this - that is exactly what that process is for. What we now have in mainspace is an encyclopedia article about a single journal article that is largely sourced to that single journal article, which as well as the notability issue, creates significant questions about original research. All wikipedia articles should be based on what reliable, independent secondary sources say about the subject, not what the subject itself says. I notice you have also red-linked multiple other journal articles by the same author, which I think is an error as the suggestion that each of these would have independent notability for their own encyclopedia article is extremely unlikely. It is up to you, but I would suggest backtracking and using the AFC process would be worth considerating, otherwise the article as it stands probably should have multiple maintenance templates placed on it, and could be the subject of an AfD discussion if other editors think, like me, that notability is questionable. I am tagging Randykitty here who previously proposed the article for deletion on the basis that: There are lots of articles that are cited 1000 times (or more). Generally, those are just mentions, only rarely is there a discussion of those articles. Does not meet WP:GNG. Thank you Melcous (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree with Melcous. There are literally thousands of journal articles that are cited 1000 times or more, but as said, those citations are rarely in-depth discussions. Creating articles about them would be a Sisyphus task. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you have mastered the lesson? I called a colleague who, in fact, does not let go of the article. Greetings from Russian Wikipedia, have a nice day! M.lebedev (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even I make sure on Russian Wikipedia that people don't WP:WAND (or in Russian ВП:ВАНД) a Russian article about an actress. M.lebedev (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have no clue what vandalism is if you think that is what we are talking about here. Nor do you seem to understand WP:RS. But it's really not worth edit warring over, even though you seem to think it is. Melcous (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that you completely misinterpreted the words I said when I canceled your edits. The main thing is that you understand everything. Goodbye again! M.lebedev (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the bottom line is that while another editor has agreed with your conclusion, the things you have said show that you probably do not have the competence to be editing English wikipedia. Edits are not canceled, it is not our role to judge what primary sources a secondary source should use, and good faith edits are never vandalism. For someone with less than 50 edits to English wikipedia, you might want to show a little more good faith and openess to listening to others. Melcous (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]