User talk:MelbourneStar/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Inquiring minds...

Where are the criteria you're pointing at? Drmies (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: WP:RY. But pertaining to that edit summary, I'm referring to the hidden message that specifically says not to add Cox as per WP:RY. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw the message, but I wanted to see what it was based on: not including a recent and highly notable death struck me as counterintuitive, and so I wasn't sure what to do in that minor edit war. I suggest posting that link in the hidden message--I didn't even know there was such a thing as RY. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I can do that now. And dont't you worry – that was me, some 5 years ago, regarding RY. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I suppose those articles have a process. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Good catch

Nice job catching DanDud88 socking. He is the epitome of cluelessness, and refuses to learn the rules. The denial of a checkuser is odd, given the master is indef'd, but did you see he's admitted DanDud17 is a sock in his usual petulant way? I've reverted all his edits, and was thinking about giving the original blocking editor (NeilN) a heads up rather than waiting out the endless sock puppetry case delays. Any objections? --Drmargi (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Thank you! and I have no objections whatsoever. I find it quite hard to believe that he isn't familiar with policy, considering he has had various accounts since 2008. Thanks again, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked! --Drmargi (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks for letting me know! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Image

It is from the internet and I gave credit for the photos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfan30 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Devilfan30: That's not how copyright works. Please review the Licensing policy of Wikimedia Commons, prior to uploading further images and using them on Wikipedia. Further breaches of copyright may result in you losing your editing privileges — afterall, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, and therefore, content must be free – or licensed properly which would allow for fair use (fair use on Wikipedia only, not on Commons). Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

MelbourneStar:

Your message stated: Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Hillary Clinton. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please be aware that I did not add commentary or my "own personal analysis" to the Wikipedia article on Hillary Clinton, and accordingly I did not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The statements in my edit were taken from FBI Director Comey's statement to the media, which is referenced in the article. Further, Director Comey confirmed the salient points of his statement to the media during his testimony to Congress the following day. Mr. Comey stated that 1) Ms. Clinton sent and received classified emails using her personal server, and lied about it when she said that she didn't; 2) Ms. Clinton did not turn over all work related emails, and lied when she said she did; 3) Ms. Clinton's team deleted thousands of work related emails, and she lied about it; 4) it was likely that her personal email was hacked; and 5) Ms. Clinton was extremely careless in her handling of classified documents. In his testimony to Congress, Mr. Comey also stated that Ms. Clinton provided a large number of classified documents to her personal attorney, who did not have a security clearance. To ignore any of these relevant facts, and to prevent their inclusion in an article regarding Hillary Clinton, does not allow a reader to obtain a complete picture of Ms. Clinton's email issues. Indeed, including facts and positions favorable to Ms. Clinton, while preventing inclusion of facts which are unfavorable to Ms. Clinton, violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf (talk • contribs) 02:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@JohnTopShelf: Yet, you used the word "lied" (various times, might I add) — Comey, did not. That is a big no no, and hence a violation of WP:NPOV. Don't do it again, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Director Comey said Ms. Clinton did not tell the truth regarding a number of issues concerning her emails. While not telling the truth is tantamount to lying, you are correct that he did not actually use the word "lied". In any event, I see the article has been changed to include some of Director Comey's statements regarding Ms. Clinton's email failures, while omitting any of his statements about her repeatedly not telling the truth. Thank you for clarifying Wikipedia's position regarding what it considers to be a neutral position - I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf (talk • contribs) 12:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC at WikiProject Amusement Parks

A change to the list of available statuses for Amusement Park infoboxes is being considered at the following discussion:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Status fields in attraction articles.

Please share any thoughts or comments you might have there. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You are receiving this notification, because you are listed as a member of WikiProject Amusement Parks

Orphaned non-free image File:SVUseason17poster.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SVUseason17poster.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

9/11 truth movement - undo change

Thanks, Alex, I'm new to wikipedia editing and find it hard to see where people have written why they've edited my edits. I only now see that Marvellous Spider-Man justified his removal of my content because I didn't follow external links guidelines. He's also claimed, however, that my addition is promotional which I fail to understand but I will deal with the external links issue first. Petra Petra Liverani (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see you took away my request from Hillary Clinton's talk page. "we don't rely upon extreme right-wing media outlets, like Info Wars, for references." That's like me saying that your authority is moot because your from Australia's extreme left-wing capital. Facts are facts and should be addressed. If it's true it's true and people need to know, so don't censor critical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.62.128 (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@124.148.62.128: If you continue to make defamatory allegations against a living person on Wikipedia, I'll report you, and you may lose your editing privileges. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

But it's not defamatory? It's not saying "lol hahaha hillary is unwell dont vote for her", it's saying that she has health problems. That's a fact and it's not slanderous, it's perfectly neutral, and for the sake of neutrality it shouldn't be censored. Wikipedia has a whole damned article about the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but that's not slandering Bill Clinton, those are simple facts, AND Bill Clinton is a living person. So what's different here? I feel like you're using your bias to shut down objectivity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.62.128 (talk • contribs)

@124.148.62.128: That's the problem: you don't know that she has problems, in fact, Clinton herself has stated that she does not have serious health problems. You stating she does as a fact, is a problem, per WP:Libel. My alleged "bias" which is unproven (like your afforementioned allegations against this living person) is what's telling you to stop, before I take this to a relevant thread to discuss your conduct.

Irrespective of whether your allegations were made against Trump, Clinton, the Pope or the Queen — I could not care less. You do not make such claims, especially based on sources that are not considered reliable. I have nothing further to say on this matter. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:GrolloTower, Melbourne c1997.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:GrolloTower, Melbourne c1997.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I've removed your tag, as I've nullified the problem by moving said image to the Grollo Tower article — said article describes the work, and is hence permissible. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

International Harvester contribution by Caentexas

I was a first time contributor. I provided unique information not mentioned in existing text. Everything I wrote is true. I thought it added nicely to IH's legacy of WWII. Please give me some advice on where I went wrong. Caentexas (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Caentexas: and welcome to Wikipedia!

Unfortunately, I had to undo your edit, as the content you added was placed within a citation template (instead of an actual paragraph). More so, it was added without a citation to a reliable source. In future it would be best to review your edits, and also make sure that the content you add is verified by reliable sources. I hope that helps, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly bias

Hello,

I received a message from you regarding a change I (tried)to make to your article regarding the formation of the Republican Party. The way your piece is written shows clear bias and when I tried to add some information, I received a message saying that my changes were not constructive. Not constructive for whom?? My changes were factual but I guess that doesn't matter to you if the changes do not make the Democrat party shine pretty. I pointed out that the democrats who created the KKK to combat the efforts of the republican Party to end slavery! FACTUAL!! but I guess there is no need for people to know that little tidbit of information! well, I will never visit any of your Wikipedia pages again and I will be sure to let other people know about this as well as the information which I tried to insert to your article! you cant just cover it up or sweep it under the rug, there are too many people who are still alive that know the real history of the democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:402:501:C8EE:E883:EFEC:F85B:C8BB (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@2601:402:501:C8EE:E883:EFEC:F85B:C8BB: You made no effort to explain your edits, to cite reliable sources to verify the content you wish to add in. Cherry on top, you made no effort to keep a neutral tone. If you continue to make unconstructive edits to that article -- or any other article for that matter, I will report you and your edits. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

You recently commented to me about an addition I made to Lupita Tovar's page about her being the oldest verified actress. According to the "List of living stars from the Golden Age of Hollywood" it is confirmed she is. Just thought I would let you know.

Thank you very much, and have a wonderful day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.139.238 (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@24.217.139.238: Hi, and thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia!

I had to undo your edit because it was unreferenced. Content on Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources. Please feel free to add said content back into the article -- provided you cite a reliable source. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion at William Gates Building

Accidentally blanked my edit summary, sorry. Redone with explanation. Chris Smowton (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Smowton: Mistakes happen, all is good! Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Answer

Hello there, I reduced the article of the UK EU Parliament Membership of 2019 simply because the UK has voted for BREXIT, and there is no point in doing that election in 2019, as I said if even if the UK would not have still exited the EU at that point, it would be very unlikely anyway that they would do this referendum, it will probably be boycotted, that was just my point of view and also what is probably going to happen, and I am not an activist, I only did because it's surely what was going to happen.87.0.66.206 (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @87.0.66.206:

I believe this ought to be discussed on the relevant talk page. Politics being politics: nothing is confirmed, especially a timeframe for when (or if) the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. An EU/UK Parl election is still scheduled – so unless the UK is certain to leave prior 2019 (that is, a timeframe is set confirming the departure) – then perhaps, said article ought to be redirected. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Golden Syrup - Not Treacle

I am a Culinary Teacher and have recently had students sharing the Idea that Golden Syrup is the same as Treacle, it is not, I feel it is important to clarify this, so I made the point of adding some narrative to make further editors think before calling Golden Syrup Treacle, inverted Syrups are the chemical process of Glucose turning to Fructose, as I say in my Edit, Grape Juice is not wine and Syrup is not Treacle, oddly several years ago the article in the Wiki was much clearer, why this was changed is beyond me. I see now my students are now referencing the Wiki and making the assumption that Treacle and Golden Syrup are the same thing.

Older version of the Wikipedia were accurate, this current version is written with an American Slant that doesn't understand the History Of Golden Syrup and the Colloquial variations of the Word Treacle, so I wanted to make it clear Golden Syrup is Inverted Sugar Syrup https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Inverted_sugar_syrup it is a way of intensifying the sweetness of sugar. Treacle is a burnt Sugar Syrup which aims to add a bitterness to Syrup, they are not the same.

Thank you for you work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.198.242 (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello @31.53.198.242: welcome to Wikipedia,

I'm afraid I had to revert your edits, as they didn't appear too constructive to me. I understand one's frustration, but one cannot simply voice their frustration within the body or lead of an article. There are other people (besides editors) reading the article, and hence, they too will also read your comments. So in future, I'd ask that you direct your comments, to the article's talk page. I'm sure there, people can discuss your concerns.

Another thing you could do: perhaps you could edit the article, change the parts that appear to be wrong. Should you do this, you must provide verifiable reliable sources.

It's good to see that your students are using Wikipedia. It wasn't too long ago that I was a student here in Australia, and would rely on Wikipedia for general assistance. I would recommend that students opt to not reference Wikipedia, but rather reference Wikipedia's sources. Not a negative reflection on Wikipedia, but as you can tell, things change quite often and not always is the content of quality (it's all a work in progress!). That's just my 2c, of course!

Hope I've addressed your concerns. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

edit to College Edoaurd-Montpetit page

Hi, I'm the communciation directormthe the College and I did made some changes and updates on that page. But they are not there anymore. Can you restore them please, or do I have to redo tehm again.

Merci

Alain Legault — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cégep Édouard-Monteptit (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mr Legault, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I had to undo your edits, for various reasons. Firstly, you had removed content verified by reliable sources — without an adequate explanation as to why. Please use the edit summary feature to specify the changes you are making.

Also, please ensure that when you add content – you cite reliable sources (eg. books, newspaper articles: secondary sources are good); and that you write in a neutral point of view.

Which brings me to my final concern. Because you are connected to the organisation, you may have a conflict of interest; I urge you to read this behavioral guideline on conflicts of interest — prior to editing the article in question.

Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Plymouth Parkway FC page

I have just updated the Plymouth Parkway FC page, i am the chairman of the club hence why there was no source to the new information, could you please put back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.107.50 (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @88.211.107.50: welcome to Wikipedia.

I've had to undo your edits, because you had not provided a secondary reliable source. Wikipedia does not allow original research – that is, content that you or I come up with – it must be published, and verifiable.

Secondly, content on Wikipedia must be written in a neutral point of view – it cannot be promotional, whatsoever.

Finally, because you have a connection to club, I urge that you read and heed the advice on this page. It pertains to Wikipedia's attitude towards conflict of interest editing.

I hope I have been of some assistance. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 16:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Come on, Melbounre. My edits have not been disputed. These various Facebook and Twitter endorsements of Ms. Clinton are pure non-RS SPS comments regarding a third party. Let's clean up this long article and maintain WP standards. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Srich32977: no sorry, your edits have been disputed right here by one editor. And now, myself. You need to discuss your almost blanket removal of content – which, by the way, I can see instances which are not even in WP:SPS/WP:EL/P territory – that is, verified Twitter accounts that explicitly endorse the Clinton campaign, which have been oddly removed. Please discuss your edits on the talk page of the list, as you've been asked twice now. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: it is rather sad, might I say, that neither of you are willing to open a discussion on the talk page of said article, and discuss the removal of content. This is not a BLP issue – as first of all: one would be supporting the Clinton campaign, and secondly: I'm not seeing the BLP tag over on the talk page. Rich, you've mentioned WP:EL/P: your essay refers to external links; Rich and Marek: I refer you both to our policy on the matter – WP:TWITTER – which allows for such self-published sources, so long as they don't involve third parties; to which, I will say: X is stating their own political views that they subscribe to. Glad we know how WP:BRD works and I love the discussion guys. Nothing further to add. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

edits to bus company

there are not disruptive edits as they show the bus types in use and also show the garages in alphabetical order — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawsj123 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Lawsj123: I'm unable to determine which article you may be referring to? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 16:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

edits to Warframe

hello melbournestar, I am a newbie here. May I know how I can bring up the issues and controversies regarding the game in the wiki page. Thanks for ur concern! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.100.143.152 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @121.100.143.152: welcome to Wikipedia,

Should you wish to add content that is regarding controversies: it must be well-sourced material (great sources include: books, newspaper articles, etc.) no blogs, opinion articles, Facebook, YouTube and no original research. It must also be written in a neutral point of view – so we mustn't take sides. Furthermore, when quoting – please turn caps lock off.

Hope that helps. Happy editing! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 16:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

follow up edit page College Édouard-Montpetit

Many tx for your quick ansmwer, but, I do have a problem.

I do understand the conflict of interest, but when i see errors in a page talking about my institution, error due to the fact that it was written in 2012 and things have changed since then, a good exemple is the name of the institution that is now Cégep and not College, or the number of student, the socio demographic of the time.

Plus a number a factual info like the number of sport team, etc I have a hard time understand why those changes were not reagard as ligit.

So as i want to have those cahnges done, tell me how should I proceed.

Merci beaucoup

--Cégep Édouard-Montpetit 17:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cégep Édouard-Monteptit (talk • contribs)

@Cégep Édouard-Monteptit: Should there be outdated content — you may replace it with new content. But it must be verified by reliable sources – otherwise: you cannot make those changes. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)