PicardDK

Welcome!

Hi PicardDK! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jolyfize (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

Hello, I'm Melcous. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Jay Kalra seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Your history within this article appears to be maintaining the individual's page as a resume while omitting a major important event. Indeed you are actively removing it entirely. You are welcome to propose language, if that truly is your concern. But the event will be included, and Wikipedia is not a forum for hosting censored resumes. PicardDK (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Melcous, can you disclose whether you have a personal stake in maintaining this individual's "wikipedia page", based on the history it seems to be maintained as a resume. I believe it is indeed a mistake to omit this significant event, quite possible the most significant event in his "resume". Please research the significance of having a Lancet article retracted, and the downstream consequences to Kalra's co-author colleagues from this event. The citations used are impeccable, source information is provided in the form of the Lancet link, and to whole-cloth remove it is, very frankly, a mistake and runs counter to Wikipedia's core principles. By retaining points like Kalra's "rotary club membership" in the article you have been helping to maintain, and omitting the Lancet retraction and investigation, frankly, shows bias and evidence of using this platform as a promotional, biased tool. Rather than adjust the text, or otherwise integrate these well-sourced and -cited investigation, your removal on the basis of "not-neutral", is a concern, and indeed a mistake. PicardDK (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)