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]
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 soughtbefore 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 therace is notable, but has nothing to do with whether it is ok to list non-notable participants. Also seeWP:OSE which is always an argument to avoid. Thank youMelcous (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 youOxfordRowing (talk)21:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
@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 aWP:NPOV.Melcous (talk)22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 :)
Hiאייל and thanks for your message. Having an article or discussion on another language wikipedia does not mean something is necessarily notable here - seeWP:OTHERLANGS. Notability needs to be demonstrated according to the criteria here. On the Resume like tag, I added thatbefore a number of changes were made and some of them have addressed the issues so I will remove that. Thank youMelcous (talk)02:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 meetsWP: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 toverify that. Thank youMelcous (talk)22:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read thisWP: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]
CheersI 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]
Meike.schulz, wikipedia has a policy against "outing" editors, even those who have chosen to use their own names here. "Off-wiki evidence" simply refers to the fact that there is available information elsewhere that the person has aconflict of interest, but it is not being revealed here to avoid outing the editor. It might seem like a technical distinction, but it is an attempt to be respectful of the editor's anonymity here and of wikipedia policies.Melcous (talk)00:26, 13 August 2025 (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 articlemay have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia'sterms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia'scontent policies, particularlyneutral point of view.(May 2024)
tag. If you disagree, could we elicit a second opinion from one of your fellow editors?
Mtjannetta, you need to be very careful (as do I) aboutWP:OUTING editors. I am curious as tohow you have corresponded withUser: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 calledpaid professional Wikipedia writers, but also specifically saysUsers 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 aconflict 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 writingneutrally 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 aboutWP:OUTING, but am also curioushow 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 allexclusively 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.}}
@Mtjannetta:, as you have a personal relationship with a family member of the subject of the article, it would seem you too have a clearconflict 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 saysConflict 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 aboveI 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 thereare 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 ingood faith is respectable. Cheers.Royalrumblebee (talk)23:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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.
Fulvio as I noted in myedit 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]
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 providereliable sources at the time of including content in order toverify it, you shouldn't include it, it is that simple. And please stop assumingownership 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]
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 arevandalism andpointy. Stop it or you will be reported.Melcous (talk)16:18, 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:
The first edition is discontinued (no longer published).
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).
That Volume 2 of the 2nd edition on Majority World ecclesiology is a contribution to Hill's work on Majority World theology.
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 theconflict of interest guidelines? Thank youMelcous (talk)12:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No connection. Just an admirer of Hill’s writing. Thank you.
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
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 editedAndrea Orcel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageInstitutional Investor.
The discussion will take place atWikipedia: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.
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 beforeMOS:POSTNOM provided clear consensus. :)Melcous (talk)15:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, when thereis an infobox, could you please incorporate the post nom template into it, rather than removing the info entirely.Jevansen (talk)
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. ThanksMelcous (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 thatWP: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 ofMOS: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 inother 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 toMOS:POSTNOM. Thanks.Melcous (talk)21:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MrArmstrong2, Please seeWP: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]
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]
HiU 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 byDESiegel 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 writtenby Gusterson rather than writtenabout him, or are from sources connected to him (e.g. workplaces or bios). SeeWP: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. ThanksMelcous (talk)10:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HiMelcous, thank you for your help here. I have reviewed theWP: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 andKaren 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 fromWP: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).
Hi Melcous, I don't have the energy or availability to take this on much more, but would you mind taking a deeper look atthis 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 andGraywalls: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 thatAnn Limb is adeputy 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 adeputy lieutenant{{cn}}".
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 atWP: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 lettersmay 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 toWP: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 adeputy lieutenant" (and is sourced by many of the existing references, as can be seen from their titles (likethis one), though I found a more specific one.)PamD21:56, 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 whollyautobiographical...
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...
Ok, thanksPigsonthewing, 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]
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]
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 interactedhere previously. I have worked on the draft in my userspace, putthe 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 theWP: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 thenotability issue, creates significant questions aboutoriginal research. All wikipedia articles should be based on whatreliable, 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 taggingRandykitty 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 youMelcous (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]
Greetings again. I tried AFC. I've made some improvements to the draft since then based upon a helpful comment. I alsoasked for input a week ago into the crux of the issue, and there has been (as of yet) no reply (pingUser:Bonadea if you would like to reply). I'm arguing that the article meets WP:GNG due to the two dedicated editorials and other coverage in reliable, independent WP:RSs. Secondary coverage, for example, shows that the thesis was restated independently elsewhere. I cite it as such to form an entire section ofthe draft.Biosthmors (talk)18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biosthmors, that's how the AFC process works. I would agree with the reviewer that (a) the fact that half of the references are to the article itself is a huge problem ofWP:OR - wikipedia articles must be based on whatreliable, independent secondary sources say about a topic; and (b) that notability has not been demonstrated - and to my mind is unlikely to be able to be.Melcous (talk)20:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The focus on WP:OR being a "huge problem" is unwarranted, in my opinion. The concern is over potential "novel interpretations of primary sources", which can be done with secondary or tertiary sources as well. I've summarized the primary text with care (in an attemptedWP:PLOT-ish way), so there should be no novel interpretations. The concern I don't think anyone has detailed iswhy doesn't the article meet WP:GNG? I've offered specific arguments why I think it does. Why doesn't the secondary coverage of the subject establish notability?Biosthmors (talk)18:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also,Randykitty, maybe you have some guidance to share. The following two editorials are devoted to discussing the article.
Grayson, P; Meilman, P (2012). "Eat Your Veggies".Journal of College Student Psychotherapy.26 (3):163–164.doi:10.1080/87568225.2012.686419.
Thomas, Sandra P. (April 6, 2012). "Editorial: Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes (TLCs) and Mental Health".Issues in Mental Health Nursing.33 (4): 199.doi:10.3109/01612840.2012.676465.PMID22468584.
Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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
Georgymm, the first thing you can do is clarify whether you do have aWP:COI and if so, disclose this and use the talk page to propose changes rather than editing the article directly. This would mean one template could be removed. I will look at the others and see.Melcous (talk)03:03, 23 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 understandWP: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 thecompetence 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 moregood faith and openess to listening to others.Melcous (talk)20:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so muchDrm310! It's going to be a hot Christmas Day here in Australia, but I appreciate the sentiment :) Best to you and yours, with thanks for all your do here too.Melcous (talk)11:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 7 January 2025 you have put a maintenance template on the article "Hajo Leschke" sayingthat it "promotes the subject in a subjective manner without...".
In the meantime several editors, including me, have tried to follow your advice to removeor replace such wording and improve the article by adding further references.
Please let me know, if you think that the template can now be removed.
I noticed that the article on Indraneel Mittra has been flagged by you and I’d like to better understand the concerns. I’m interested in improving the article but would appreciate some guidance on what specifically needs to be addressed.
Could you clarify the key points that require attention and suggest how best to resolve them in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines? Any feedback or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
Ashish Pawar 28, you can click on the the two templates at the top of the page that flag the issues. Wikipedia articles should be based on whatreliable, independent secondary sources say about a topic, whereas the majority of the references on this article currently are to things written by the subject. That can also be consideredoriginal research, which is not allowed. All this results in an article which reads as if it is what he would say about himself, or is like aWP:NOTRESUME. The article needs to be rewritten to focus on what other sources say about him and his work, which probably means trimming the content back and having less detail, written in a moreneutral way. I would also note that your editing pattern here, along with a simple google search, suggests you have aconflict of interest with this article, which means you should not be editing it directly but should instead disclose your conflict of interest, and use the talk page to propose changes to the article. I have left a note with more information about this on your talk page.Melcous (talk)12:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Melcous,
Thank you for your detailed feedback and for taking the time to review the article. I appreciate your guidance on improving the neutrality and reliability of the content. I would like to clarify and address a few points you raised:
Use of Peer-Reviewed Sources: I understand the concern regarding original research. I would like to point out that some of the references cited in the article are peer-reviewed papers that Dr. Mittra has co-authored. These papers have undergone academic scrutiny and contain verifiable findings.
Conflict of Interest (COI): While I do know Dr. Mittra, my intention in writing this article was purely to document his work, which I believe is notable and has had significant impact in the field of global health. I understand Wikipedia's COI guidelines and will adhere to them going forward. I will disclose my connection on my user page and will use the article's talk page to propose any future edits instead of making direct changes.
Tone and Style: I acknowledge that the article may currently reads like a resume. I will focus on rewriting the content this week to ensure it adheres to a more neutral, encyclopedic tone. This will involve trimming down overly detailed descriptions of positions and achievements and focusing instead on summarizing his notable contributions as presented in independent sources.
Request for Specifics: While I work on improving the article, it would be extremely helpful if you could provide any specific examples of sections or content that you believe require removal or significant revision. This will help ensure that I am addressing the key concerns effectively.
Additionally could you please share the link to the detailed note on the talk page, which you have mentioned in your reply, as I am unable to locate it.
Ashish Pawar 28 Please do not use AI to write responses for you here. Do not say you will do things and not do them. You have not disclosed yourconflict of interest, and I will not engage further with you unless you do. And if you can't find the link to your own talk page, you probably don't have thecomptence required to be editing here at all.Melcous (talk)20:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We propose the following changes to imolement your comment regarding the tone and style of the article. Please let us know if you could assist with making these changes?
Current Sentence:
He established the first dedicated multi-disciplinary Breast Unit in India[1] – a model which has since been adopted by most centers in the country. He pioneered the discipline of clinical research in cancer in India.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
Revised Sentence:
He established the first dedicated multi-disciplinary Breast Unit in India[1] and is a leading figure in the discipline of clinical research in cancer in India. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
Current sentence:
He is the first Indian recipient of such a competitive grant from the NIH.[13] -No change
Current Sentence:
In the field of laboratory research, he is credited with having discovered the wide-ranging biological activities of cell-free chromatin particles (cfChPs), which have critical implications for human health and disease, and how deactivating cfChPs can have many therapeutic effects.
Revised Sentence:
In the field of basic and translational research, he uncovered the wide-ranging biological activities of cell-free chromatin particles (cfChPs) and how their deactivation can have critical implications for human health and disease.
Current Sentence:
with both his father and grandfather physicians
Revised Sentence:
with both his father and grandfather being physicians
Current Sentence:
his randomized trial of screening for early detection of breast cancer using clinical breast examination, and of cervical cancer using visual inspection of the cervix, involving 150,000 women, is considered to be a landmark study that can save thousands of lives annually if implemented in low- and middle-income countries.
Revised Sentence:
his randomized trial of screening for early detection of breast cancer using clinical breast examination, and of cervical cancer using visual inspection of the cervix, involving 150,000 women, is considered to be a landmark study that can potentially save thousands of lives annually if implemented in low- and middle-income countries.
Current Sentence:
This publication opened up research avenues on the role of the thyroid hormone in breast cancer and its relationship with prolactin.
Revised Sentence:
Building on its findings, Mittra went on to elucidate the roles of thyroid hormone in breast cancer and its relationship with prolactin.
Current Sentence:
Mittra has also discovered how the harmful effects of cfChPs can be mitigated by combining the nutraceuticals Resveratrol (R) and Copper (Cu).
Revised Sentence:
Mittra has also demonstrated how the harmful effects of cfChPs can be mitigated by combining the nutraceuticals Resveratrol (R) and Copper (Cu).
Current Sentence:
He has shown that the R-Cu combination leads to the generation of oxygen radicals, which can deactivate cfChPs with therapeutic effects.
Revised Sentence:
His experiments indicate that the R-Cu combination leads to the generation of oxygen radicals, which can deactivate cfChPs and provide therapeutic effects.
Ashish Pawar 28, this is not the place to make this request. You should do so on the talk page of the article, and you can use theWikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to do so. Please also note my request on your talk page to clarify if you meet the definition of apaid editor here. I will also note that your request above reads as if it has been at least partially written by AI - some of the requests make no sense as the revised suggestion is exactly the same as the current. Please do not use AI to write edit requets, they should be your own words and they should be based onreliable, independent, secondary sources. thank youMelcous (talk)12:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.
We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in thissurvey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view itsprivacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards,Sam Walton (talk)16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your excellent contributions to theRyan Holiday article! Your edits have greatly improved its neutrality and overall quality, fully aligning withWP:NPOV. Keep up the great work—it's truly appreciated!IndyNotes (talk)15:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you changed some of the spellling from British to American style. It's unclear which style should be used because of the dual subject matter (Ireland and North Carolina), but we should at least be consistent. I didn't look for other words, but all the dates are in British style. If we're going to spell American style, we should date the same way.--Bbb23 (talk)13:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 thanks for your message - yes, I noticed that the majority of the article used American spelling (behavior, neighbor etc) so made a few changes for consistency. I didn't look at the dates at all, but agree it should also be consistent.Melcous (talk)20:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HelloMelcous, you've added {{Excessive examples}} tag onDaniel Palmer (art historian). Thank you for looking it over. Yes, it is a rather long article, I may have over-reacted to providing notability evidence, but I have done my utmost with it...there is just so much material on the guy...where do you stop?!
Have you time to identify for me please those examples you feel are excessive? In relation to the subject's ideas on the mobile phone camera for example, there are nuances he has identified that from my own interests in the field I find important, and that others have cited in their own texts, and I have barely scratched the surface there. I haven't really covered his discussion of video as art, or of sensitometry, the transitions in photomedia technologies etc.
What stands out for you as particularly excessive. Happy to leave the template on if you don't have time...others may help.
HiJamesmcardle, I was particularly looking at the list of selected articles and chapters on this. I would suggest culling those significantly to the top 8-10 most significant of each, that's why it is called "selected". For the rest of the article, a few initial thoughts are that there are too many quotes and it leans towards the promotional. I would look carefully at any quote that is from someone who is "red-linked", suggesting they are not particularly notable so why are we quoting them. Also get rid ofnon neutral and weasel words like "prominent", "substantial", "significant" and other similar opinion words throughout the article.Melcous (talk)00:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello againMelcous, thank you for these thoughtful suggestions.
I've read through very thoroughly again, searching for such 'weasel words', and cannot find them, or puffery, or promotional language (can you?) and I'm satisfied that the article adheres to Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and factual reporting.
As to red links; those people are significant and all deserving of Wikipedia entries. For the several women particularly, I will be writing articles on them, so I think I'll leave them all in; it gives me a prompt to do that. I'll remove 'selected' from the lists as I think I have most, if not all, listed, and as they are in chronological order that provides anyone reading with a picture of developments in Palmer's research.
Having spent considerably more time on this article than I originally intended, for the time being I need to move on to concentrate on other subjects and will leave this article to others. However, I will take your advice and come back to it later with fresh eye to reconsider the number of quotes.
Jamesmcardle I have gone and removed a bunch of weasel words/promotional language. Please do not remove "selected" from the lists of publications, itshould be selected and not everything he has ever written, and thus you should cull a whole bunch from each list. This is not the place to list everything he has ever done; his own website or academic lists can do this. This is an encyclopedia article that should highlight his key achievements and link toother places where those who want to can be provided with a more comprehensive picture.Melcous (talk)04:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts on this article. I'll go though and find those chapters and articles most often cited as a guide to the most important, which will take time, and then will remove the rest.Jamesmcardle (talk)05:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Melcous, just dropping you a line about thisedit. Everything on there is great except the by whom tag. It is justifiable as mentions of awards should usually be accompanied by the name of the awarding body, but the source is there, and a quick click on it revealed the name of the organisation giving the prize.
If there is a source nearby, it's always better to click and see if the information you feel is missing can be added quickly. Unfortunately, there are a lot more people adding tags than resolving them, so tags that might easily be solved as part of your useful copyedits can end up staying on the page for years.
Ok, but you resolved it, so the tag did its task right? It would probably help if editors kept an eye on articles they create so that tags added in the cleanup stage can be resolved, but it's great that others like you are able to do that.Melcous (talk)12:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Melcous,following your revision of the article in question (Michele Vincenti), I would like to inform you that:
I have kept the structure as you reorganized it.
I have adjusted the language to align with Wikipedia’s stylistic and semantic standards, to ensure the article does not read like a résumé.
I have removed, as much as possible, sources directly linked to the university where he works, even though they are public sources, in order to avoid the article relying excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject.
I have added reliable sources in the "Education" section.
If you approve the changes I have made, I kindly ask you to remove the following templates from the top of the article:
Dear Melcous,thank you for your prompt intervention. I noticed that you left the tag “This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject” on the pageMichele Vincenti, and I understand that you’re right.Therefore, over the next few weeks or months, I will work on replacing some (or all) of the UCW sources to ensure the article is based on independent sources. I’ll keep you updated. Thanks again!Pierluigi Testa (talk)13:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed that you are a rollbacker. I don't agree with some of your edits and am letting you know they will be changed. I am expecting you to disagree with all of the potential changes.Efficacity (talk)11:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Efficacity I have no idea what you are referring to or why you would leave this message. If you have specific edits you want to talk about, then discuss them. Vague handwaving like this serves no one; nor does you making assumptions or expectations.Melcous (talk)12:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Melcous Gordon's School wishes to improve the Wikipedia page in line with the regulations and have employed a consultant to look at our page and rewrite it to improve neutrality and remove promotional language. Unreliable sources have been replaced or updated and references added. Please could I ask you to have a look at the changes here User:Silver8irch/sandbox
<nowiki>TheMartha Seger was the 1st women to serve the Federal Reserve in a complete term as governor. I don't under why the article is considered to be an article that looks like a resume.Starlighsky (talk)02:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Starlighsky the tag has nothing to do with her notability, it is abouthow the article is written. There are a number of factors that make it read more like a resume than an encyclopedia article should, including the listing of directorships and memberships rather thanprose outlines of relevant content; a random quote that is not integrated into the article; and a table of presentations, which if listed at all should be in a separate simple publications list.Melcous (talk)11:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you remove the section of Senior practitioner with the reason of "Not notable". Is there a criteria for notability in wiki? Do they need to achieve certain level of public celebrity? It seems to me that most Aikido articles have some information about the senior students, practice geography:Yoseikan Aikido,Yoshinkan Aikido,Gozo Shioda,Morihiro Saito. Same with Karate:Chitō ryū,Chōjun Miyagi,Takayuki Kubota,Mas Oyama,Tatsuo Shimabuku. I seems to me that topics with strong heritage element like martial arts, such linage continuity information can and should naturally be included even when public fame are not associated with all people.Tamle2nd (talk)04:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tamle2nd generally speaking, "notable students" or practitioners etc listed in articles are those who have wikipedia articles written about them, which demonstrates their notability, as is the case in many (but not all) of those you have referenced.Melcous (talk)04:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And again, generally any of these that are stand alone lists (whether in the infobox or the article), should only list notable students. Theremight be a case where within the body of an article a student is named for some specific reason to do with the subject of the article, but that would need to be well sourced and relevant.Melcous (talk)05:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give the link to the notability wiki policy? That way many people can help improving by removing contents from those articles. It seems to me that very many articles would be in violation of the policy.Tamle2nd (talk)05:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your kindness. My first day here, the sharks chewed me up. But I am resilient. Regarding Eben Alexander, his page has a very negative bias, and I made a minor correction. He never wrote that he had a diagnosis of brain death. He wrote descriptively about being "virtually brain dead" as a way to describe how sick he was. I made a minor correction and an editor reported (against the kindness rule) that I am a troll. Then I mentioned a scientific paper, he whacked it that the U. of Virginia School of Medicine is not acceptable source. So I added a lot of info to try to get the word out that people can read the chart review online, but you said wrong format. I knew that, but was trying to get something on there with the truth. I have a lot of info about Dr. Anderson to balance the negativity, but I am feeling deflated. It's not right for Dr. Alexander to be wronfully smeared on Wikipedia. That's wrong. Advice?Linda Ann Johnson (talk)10:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiLinda Ann Johnson, happy to help. First things first, nobody said you were a troll. Your first edit to the article was actually reverted by a automated account calledClueBot NG, because it triggered a filter forvandalism. The bot sometimes makes mistakes - it seems here it was simply that the formatting errors in the edit you made looked like they were made by somebody who was messing around. Your second edit was reverted by a very experienced editorMrOllie because it used a reference that is not areliable source by wikipedia's standards. And I reverted your third edit because, as I noted in the edit summary, it wasn't written according to wikipedia's guidelines for content or sourcing. I totally understand that having all three edits reverted has left you feeling deflated, but I can assure you there was nothing personal going on. It can take a while to get the hang of editing here. A couple of specific questions for you: do you have any connection with Dr Alexander? If you do, you would have aconflict of interest with this article. That doesn't mean you can't be helpful here, but it would mean you can't edit the article directly. Secondly, can you please try to explain as simply and clearly as possible what you think is wrong with the article currently? Then we can look at whether there are independent, reliable sources that support the changes you are suggesting. ThanksMelcous (talk)10:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Desertdweller1983, "c/e" is shorthand for "copyedit". In that edit, I was removing formatting and styles that seem to me to have come over from translating the article from one wikipedia project to another, and resulted in formatting that is not standard in English wikipedia according to theManual of Style.Melcous (talk)22:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.On the one hand, you are correct.Sayyid inArabic form is an honorary title, while the descendants of ourImams are called (Shiites). However, when a person's name appears on their birth certificate, if they are a Sayyid, in Iran according toPersian language, the word "Seyyed" (Seyyed in Persian form as a name, notSayyid) is included as part of their name in official identity documents. In fact, omitting "Seyyed" fromSeyyed Amir Hossein Feghhi results in an incomplete name. His death certificate also lists him as "Seyyed Amir Hossein Feghhi". Although not in all cases, most of his articles also mention the name "Seyyed Amir Hossein Feghhi". Please, if possible, restore the article's title to its original form or at least add a redirect from "Seyyed Amir Hossein Feghhi", because many pages with "Seyyed Amir Hossein Feghhi" have wikilinks to this article, and now those links have become red and invalid. Thanks.PouDer3 (talk)16:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, really appreciate your help...אייל (talk)15:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
%2c_cropped.jpg)
