User talk:MelbourneStar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Re: Plasma Display edit

For what it's worth, the edit was aimed at improving user experience and value. The paragraph I removed from that article added very little to its informational content. What it did do was provide a link to a biography of someone who made a contribution, of undetermined significance, to the development of plasma display technology. I'll admit that my method of editing leaves something to be desired in that I did not leave a note about the deletion. Hopefully the Wikipedia will not become so hidebound that such edits are no longer possible. I'm probably not willing to get involved in a lengthy debate about this edit. So take it or leave it. But my opinion, as a relatively knowledgeable user, is that the paragraph I deleted adds little and interferes with user experience. By the way, I teach a related subject as a tenured faculty member at university level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.188.244.237 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You have personal experience with the matter, that's great. But did you or did you not, remove sourced content, without an edit summary? -- MST☆R ^{(Happy Halloween!)} 11:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

p.s. just noticed this in the existing discussion:

"The history section reads like an advertisement for Larry Weber's personality cult. I'm sure he is an impressive man who has had a lot to do with the development of plasma technology, but some of the material belongs in an article about him instead of the article about plasma technology. (E.g., the comment that as of 2008 he is back at work, and if he is successful plasmas might regain market share vs. LCDs. The point isn't if he is successful — it's that if anyone is successful. In any event, this whole sentence feels out of place in an encyclopedia article, whose purpose is not to predict future developments of the plasma/LCD battle for market-share.)Dsspiegel (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)"

Looks like this is an ongoing 'issue' with regards to the article. This is where I bow out ... Cheers and good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.188.244.237 (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally irrelivant. You removed referenced content - without a valid edit summary - no, I mean No edit summary whatsover. Happy editing :) -- MST☆R ^{(Happy Halloween!)} 11:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you hate Emile Heskey's followers?

You seem to delete every page we make about the religion "HESKEYISM", its kinda unfair... although granted, your reactions for deleting them are quite fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp94 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the editor who has deleted the nonsense article about a fake religion known as Heskysm. Sorry -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Danjel's talk page.
Message added 09:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

+1 ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand nationality law

Hi, thank you for undoing the unwarranted deletion made by 121.98.140.36 in New Zealand nationality law. I have posted a warning on the talk pages of both 121.98.140.36 and User:Jonathon T. Brown, explaining that they should have consulted other people on the talk page of the article before removing so much of the information in the article. Also, I explained to the two users that I have restored the content which they have removed because it was impartial, factual and relevant, citing references from a variety of reliable and respected sources - hence appropriate information to be included in the article.Bonus bon (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Big Brother Australia 2012 edits

I suggest you go read the discussion page on the Big Brother Australia 2012 page. The information I removed was removed with good reason and is NOT open for public discussion. Had you read the discussion page before you reverted the article you'd clearly understand why it was reverted back. The last few times information was removed a reason was given. Go read the page... --142.110.227.247 (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not open for public discussion? that's very interesting, please tell me at what stage you became an Wikipedia Administrator and changed rules of discussing content on a talk page? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you actually read the TalkPage for the article in question and find out? Or the other message I left you on my TalkPage. If you really understood why the information was removed in the first place maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Two reliable sources, you are claming are false. I will revert your edit, since it's disruptive, and removal of content, and I'll report you whilst i'm at it. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the Article's neither meet the criteria for New Sources to be considered "Reliable" in this case. Go ahead and report all you want you can't deny what I am saying 142.110.227.247 (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, okay, the Daily Telegraph, and News Limited (owned by the Nine Network - same network BB will be airing on) are unreliable. I get it. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you just saying that or do you actually understand? I'm not editing this to be a Troll I'm editing it because it better the article by presenting Factual information and is not just a hot-bed for rumors etc. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Big Brother Australia 2012. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I'm not going to block this time, because I hate blocking - and the page protection should do the job. But you should know better, and if I see more edit warring, I will block. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Video Game Behavior Effects

Hi Melbourne Star:

Got your message. I've looked over both pages, the "Video Game Controversy" page and the "Video Game Behavioral Effects" page. They look almost entirely redundant to me. I made a note of my reasoning in the Video Game Controversy page, where the merger was proposed. I did move over some content on theory, but otherwise I suspect most else is redundant. Happy to talk it out, of course.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.208 (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian Apologetics

I have undone your mass undoing of my contributions. All were explained in the edit history and involved either (1) adding several new sources or (2) removing problematic material, such as material tagged as WP:SYNTH. -- 202.124.73.151 (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Appologies, I have a habbit of not reading edit summaries properly. You may proceed :) If I've warned you on your talk page, I'll strike it. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries; I understand if I raised some red flags. -- 202.124.73.151 (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Shahid Balwa

The reason that the name of DB Realty was deleated in the 2G scam is that the company has not been mentioned in any chargesheet by CBI. The company that is involved is Swant Telecom / Etisalat DB. Reference links to it are: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-04-20/news/29451231_1_shahid-balwa-vinod-goenka-swan-telecom "There is no direct or indirect shareholding of DB Realty in the telecom business and the company will continue its business in the normal course," he said."

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/see-no-impactprojects-due-to-2g-scam-db-realty_537294.html

These are both 3rd part articles and media references.

202.179.91.46 (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why wasn't this mentioned in the edit summary? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed reference to Bolt.

I've been crying for the last 3 years about these incidents. I don't want them mentioned on my wikipedia, it's not relevant to my career. Please respect this, as you clearly have with other people involved. Thank you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musichistory1Q84 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI and WP:OWN. Thank you -- -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being sensitive. PLEASE REMOVE REFERENCE TO MY DAUGHTERS NAME. I don't want it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musichistory1Q84 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but it's not up to you what's there and what isn't. You don't own the article. Unless it is unreferenced or it is just plain vandalism it won't be removed. Also, could you please assume good faith when speaking to other editors? Thank you -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I gather you've been doing great anti-vandalism work lately, so this isn't intended as a criticism, but the edit summary making mention of Andrew Bolt caught my attention (mostly due to an ongoing socking issue on articles related to Bolt). In this case, I think it would be better if you respect the wishes of the subject and not include the name of her daughter - according to BLP, we need to consider whether or not names of family members are really needed in BLPs, and in this case, especially with the recent controversy, it seems better to respect the wishes of the subject. Would you be willing to consider removing the name per her request? - Bilby (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Gadag Re-direcct

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Talk:Gadag.
Message added 10:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Talk:Manhattan Life Insurance Building.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Winch and Musichistory1Q84

Your warnings to User:Musichistory1Q84 were entirely wrong. While, yes, she should have used edit summaries, the removal of that information was not vandalism. This was especially true once you heard the explanation she offered (i.e., the claim to be the subject of the article).

More importantly, you need to review WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Negative information about living people does not belong in articles when that information is not well sourced and not relevant to the person's biography. The very paragraph you're adding says that the articles in question were deemed by the Australian high court to be inflammatory. Including that info is like including claims made by a gossip rag. Just because something is printed does not mean it belongs in an article. Please do not re-add that information. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Barring the issues with the BLP etc. Her removal of content, did justify my warnings I left. It was referenced content, made by a news outlet and the Federal Court system of Australia. Was I suppoesed to simply not warn? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you were not supposed to warn her, because in her initial edit summaries she provided a specific rationale for removal. Not all removal of information is vandalism per WP:VANDAL. Instead, rather than assuming ill intent, you should WP:AGF and discuss the issue with the user. Yes, there are times where you can tell that removal is vandalism (like when the sources are very good, when the information is removed repeatedly without edit summaries, when the removal takes out the majority of the article, or when the removal cuts off sentences in the middle. Vandalism refers only to circumstances when someone is maliciously trying to damage the encyclopedia. Other forms of removal require discussion. Yes, someone can still get blocked for removing without discussion or consensus (that would usually fall under WP:Edit warring), but its still not vandalism> Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay I understand. I know I'm not exactly all good with WP:BLP's but it's all learning for me now. I now know not to make a mistake like that, as such. Also, apologies, for before with the whole personal issues thing - haven't been all myself, lately. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And, i'll apologise to Musichistory1Q84. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, don't bother to quit on my account. I can see where you're coming from, seeing the removal of the Bolt case information as some kind of political point-scoring, but the fundamental problem with including that material was that Winch's only real connection to the case was to be mentioned in Bolt's articles, and in the court proceedings (primary sources, and thus inappropriate for determining whether the case is relevant to Winch). Basically, we'd be including a bunch of material in the biography of someone who has indicated that they want to have nothing to do with the matter, on the basis that at one point Bolt wrote about her. Not good enough for a biography of a living person. Nevard (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you, to the both of you, for well..opening my eyes. :) -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've long given up getting worked up about any perceived offence on Wikipedia- gotta save the energy for Farmville. Nevard (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And no problems on my end either. Wikipedia's got a boat-load of rules, and they really aren't obvious, especially with "special cases" like BLPs. If you ever have questions, feel free to ask :). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OMG

Its not even been 20 mins I logged in and I get a pie?? You're the best, MS! — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well with all the work you've done here on the project, it's been much deserved! :) -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

MelbourneStar is quite generous, to say the least. He gave me a cheeseburger for taking a temporary leave a few weeks ago! --Davejohnsan (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Almaty International Airport

The reference is wrong. Please correct the reference instead of reverting the entire edit.

Was that mentioned in your first two edit summaries? No, it wasn't. Could you please remember to use - perhaps one of the most crucial part of an edit, next time (edit summary)? Yes please. That would tell editors not to revert, as there are issues with sources. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Laura Keene

I have undone the revert you made on Laura Keene because I did in fact leave an edit summary. It wasn't terribly detailed but a quick look at the edit I made would show that I didn't just remove content all willy nilly. I reorganized the article and only removed some bits that was unneeded because it was already covered elsewhere in the article. I also cleaned up the article and added additional categories. Hardly vandalism there. 24.72.176.240 (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, misread it. I'll strike my warning out on your talk page. Happy Editing! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :). 24.72.176.240 (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Danjel's talk page.
Message added 09:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My feeling is wait for WP:SIGCOV. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi MelbourneStar,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, apologies, but I actually don't really remember ever replying to some feedback - mistake? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid_Balwa

Hi, Vandalism is going on at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid_Balwa Deletion of contents despite valid reference.

Please can you protect the page temporarily? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.136.99 (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I suggest you take a read of this policy WP:3RR, before you make your next revert. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Talking isn't helping! Don't you see that there is an attempt to subjugate the facts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.136.99 (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkbalk

I put a recommendation on the list of notable youtubers I need to know if any of the sources like the bussiness insider are reliable sources and if so this person should be added. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_YouTube_personalities --Nicks king (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Big Brother Australia

Hi there again, I have an issue with the recent reverts you made on the Big Brother Australia article. This is the same information that was involved in the Edit War a week ago on the 2012 page. Please make sure you review the information before you assume edits are vandalism. Just because something isn't signed or doesn't have a reason attached to it doesn't mean its a valid edit. 142.110.227.191 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi (didn't know it was you on this other article) but if you did not provide an edit summary and have removed sourced content, there is no way in justifying to me that I should review the content. A big no, no. And something that will definately not happen. If you've removed content, common decency would be to explain your edit in an edit summary. That's not only expected, but I would think, required. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't me from what I can remember. Not everyone knows or understands the procedures when editing articles. I understand the point you are trying to make here that it is only common curacy to provide an edit summery but I think it's a little hasty to assume that just because one isn't provided that we assume an edit is being made maliciously. All it would have taken was a few extra moments to review the edit and verify the information that was removed. Not everything is as it seems and for the betterment of articles you review I think it would be best. The Edit War a few weeks ago being the prefect textbook example of this. It is way too easy to hit the revert button when something doesn't look right but it should be fairly simple to review the edit and the material which is actually better for the article in the long run. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I just find it a little unusual that an IP...or an editor...either way, it wouldn't even go pass their mind to add a simple edit summary - when they remove source content. Not only is it easy to, but it helps "hasty" editors like myself to properly understand what they're doing - even a little message on the articles talk page is fine. Then we are all on the same page. Oh and that message (above) was not only directed to you, but really the editor who had previously reverted. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I know myself I didn't even notice the Edit Summary field until it was brought to my attention. The edit war a few weeks ago is another great example of how even a "little message" on the articles talk page isn't sufficient and often not reviewed before a revert is made. I'm sure you are aware of the old saying "when you assume things you make an ass out of you a me." Taking a few extra moments to review edits before they are reverted is not only better for the article as a whole but can also help to prevent edit warring like the one that happened only a short while ago in a similar article. I'm not saying it's acceptable in any way to edit an article without providing an edit summary but what I am saying is that mistakes happen and that we shouldn't be so hasty in assuming that when one isn't provided that the edit was intended to be disruptive or malicious. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But we can't just simply say, "Oh it doesn't matter; I won't take up their edits with them; they probably made a simple mistake" Everyone makes mistakes, that granted they should atleast know where they may be at fault - Not providing a caution/warning, not only defeats the purpose of warning/caution templates, as well as Rollback features etc. I've switched warnings (Vandalism -> Removal of Content) as that is a mistake on my behalf, but the current warning stands. There is an edit summary for a reason, I think many of us should start using it. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow I think your use of warnings is just as heavy handed as your policies regarding revert. A friendly reminder goes a long way. You can't even argue that an edit is in fact Vandalism until you investigate which you obviously refuse to do. For someone who takes pride in the work they do around here it might be helpful if you stepped down off you high horse for a moment and looked at things from another point of view. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Heavy handed? I can't argue? On a high-horse? Please, do me a favor, and get off my talk page. Unless you change your ways, You are not welcome on this talk page, anymore. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes Heavy Handed, No you can't argue in this case, and yes it appears you've placed yourself on a pedestal. Now to clarify how I came to those conclusions:

1. You seem to revert articles based on the assumption that just because someone removes source material or edits an article and either intentionally or unintentionally does not leave an edit summary they are acting maliciously or vandalizing articles. You've already said that you don't feel any further justified in reviewing any matter further. So in other words one could consider one could consider these actions harsh or heavy handed because you are acting based on assumption rather than attempting to understand the full scope of why the edit was made.

2. In order to make a claim such a vandalism I would assume one would have at least some sort of evidence to back it up with. Again this goes back to the need to look for more than just the lack of an edit summary. Mistakes happen! Vandalism implies that the act was done with intent to harm or destroy with ruthless intent. You can't make those assumptions simply based on the fact that someone failed to provide you with an explanation.

3. As I said before a friendly or helpful reminder goes a long way with some people. When I came here today to bring this to your attention that was exactly what I was hoping to do. I find some of your warnings to be boarding on blasting individuals and accusing them of things they may not have been intending to do. Mistakes happen and absolutely no one here is perfect and again without at least a slight understanding of the situation you shouldn't be accusing anyone of being disruptive/vandalizing/being unconstructive ect. I think a warning is the second step in the process rather than the first.

Again you are completely missing the point here.142.110.227.247 (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Snail

Hi, I made some useful additions to the snail page based off recent fossil evidence (as uncovered in the Gungxiu Province 2008). Four corners recently aired some information on the snail backed up by the CSIRO, which was used as the basis for my contribution to the article. I think it is hardly fair that my efforts be labeled as vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.81.32 (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comparing Punk music to snails? Giant panda's are referred to as snails? No, it's vandalism at its best. Keep up those types of edits, and you'll be looking forward to a block -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

changes on Shahid balwa page.

DB Realty is an independent company which is not named in the charge sheet by the CBI in the 2G scam. The company named is Swan Telecom which is another independent company all together.

References:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/2g-db-realty-distances-itself-from-etisalat/748897/

"First of all, I would like to clarify one thing that is DB Realty and ETISALAT DB have no connection," Vinod Goenka, the other Managing Director of the Rs 3,200-crore real estate firm said. "There is no share holding of DB Realty in Etisalat DB barring the investments (in Swan Telecom) which are made by Shahid and me in our personal capacity. There is no other connection between the two companies. This I must clarify to everyone," he said.

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/no-equity-connectionetisalat-db-realty_522204.html

"In an interview to CNBC-TV18, Vinod Goenka, co-promoter of the company said that DB Realty has no equity connection with Etisalat-DB. He also clarified that Etisalat was not considering pulling out of the telecom venture in India."

Secondly even though Shahid Balwa is in custody he is an under trail NO case has as yet been proven against him so judging him guilty is not right.

Therefore the name DB Realty was deleted from the 2g scam section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.91.46 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I never argued you there. You violated 3RR. That's all -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

James Haskell's Wikipedia page

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am not experienced at editing Wikipedia articles and have tried to follow procedures as best to my understanding. I will try an explain the situation:

Under the Personal Life section of James Haskell's page it describes an incident at Wellington College. This is not true and did not happen. The newspapers that are cited in the article have written retractions and there is an injunction against publishing this story.

Please can you explain to me as to how I can remove this libellous and defamatory text. I don't understand why it keeps on being reverted to when it is not true - surely people can't just write whatever they like on Wikipedia, espeically as there is an injunction against it.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Oli Ball — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.185.177.226 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that this person has posted an identical message on my talk page as well, and I have replied there at length (User talk:Demiurge1000#James Haskell's Wikipedia page). Amongst other things, I've told them (in bold text) that if they make any further comments about libel, defamation, or legal injunctions, anywhere on Wikipedia, they will be blocked from editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Demiurge1000 -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Burwood, Victoria

Despite the recent editing habits of IP 122.107.175.113, I think he/she may be right about the distance between Burwood and Melbourne. Both this page and this page have Melbourne being 17km away. I agree the Postcodes Australia source is usually reliable (I use it myself) but in this instance, might it not be better to remove the ref entirely until a correct source can be found or until Postcodes Australia updates their data? ClaretAsh 10:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The source - whether it being reliable or unreliable, is not really relevant. This Ip, has and continuelly is ignoring community rules, by removing sourced content, and replacing it with content s/he thinks is correct. If you dig deep through this editors edit history, you'll find atleast 100 suburbs they've contributed on, where they've removed a source and have replaced it with data that is to by own knowledge, stating that, " Oh, I live in this area, so I'm pretty familiar with how far it is from the city ".

But, if it is the case of the source being unreliable, I still live to see where the editor has tried to communicate to us about it. I and a couple other editors have tasked him/her to communicate properly with us, but have been ignored.

Last but not least, there is no particular designated area where these statistics are taken from. One source may take the distance from the middle of the suburb; where as another may take it from the side, etc.

Hope that explains, cheers -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fully aware of their editing (I'm one of those who warned him/her about not using an edit summary) and agree with your response at the Burwood article. I was simply wondering whether we should still rely on Postcodes Australia but, as you point out, different sources rely on different sources. Thanks for clarifying. ClaretAsh 12:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem! :) Though I do wish they did have a designated area where they pull these statistics from - would make things so much easier, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Aboriginal history of Sunbury

I was perhaps a bit eager to add my bit on Sunbury's Aboriginal history - I propose the following with appropriate references included -"The Sunbury area has several important Aboriginal archaeological sites, including five earth rings, which were identified in the 1970s and 80s, and believed to have been used for ceremonial gatherings. Records of corroborees and other large gatherings during early settlement attest to the imporatance of the area for Aboriginal people of the Wurundjeri tribe. " I have recently written an article on the Sunbury earth rings so thought adding something on the main Sunbury History article would be a good idea. Does this seem appropriate? Garyvines (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing - my text is gone!

Hi MelbourneStar, I am editing for the first time. When I checked the page today to add some References to my content, I found the content has been removed. Was it removed because the References were not already put in there? Pleaase advise how to get through. Thanks, Rsamuel181 (Rsamuel1181 (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! :) Unfortunately the content you added was unreferenced, and removed from the article. I can retrieve that content for you, I'll add it onto your talk page, that way you'll be able to copy that back into the article, and add references. If you have any issues, please feel free to contact me, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)}

You reverted substantiated edit.

The revert on my edit on George_Papandreou is substantiated by the book of his ex-wife. Furthgermore, his first marriage is well-known that it was a civil one. Please refrain from further edits or else I will think that you deliberatelly try to make this article into a PR scam.StevenK71 (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm simply telling you to find more references. The article is a Wp:BLP all content must be sourced appropriately. In this case, your edit is not. Also use the article's talk page. Please find more references, because if you continue adding controversial partially sourced info. i'll have no choice, but to issue a report. Thankyou -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 13:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

This is not proper use of rollback since I do not see vandalism there. Please only use it as described as WP:Rollback. You are also way over 3RR there.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern, but I'm pretty sure Removal of Content, esp. without an edit summary, comes under the scope of Vandalism. Thanks anyway, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see removal of content right there. It appears to be good faith (but frustrated) attempt to improve the article. I'm not familiar with the content, but when it is not clear-cut vandalism, please don't use rollback.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Jasper Deng, with all due respect, please don't tell me what I can; and can't do. Refer to WP:Vandalism - where they also just happen to have a section of warnings "Delete" 1-4. If I somehow appear to be wrong, correct me please, but I don't think I am... -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(I'm not James, fyi, I'm Jasper). There's a difference between unsourced good faith edits (previous warnings before your warnings) and bad faith factual errors. I have been castigated before about this myself, and I know it's stressful, but the key here is that if unsure do not use automated tools.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Jasper? Okay, this is very awkward :) anyway, instead of going into a long debate, I would rather take your advice, and be safe rather than sorry. Thank you for the advice, I shall take it up. Thanks, Jasper. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Collateral Damage

Dear MelbourneStar! Please don't "euphemise" the euphemised killings of thounsands of women and children on account of their following a particular faith. Adminship of en-wiki does not morally authorise you for such euphemised concealment of bitter facts when there are live of thousands innocents at stake. Sincerely --119.158.86.105 (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd get your facts correct, before accusing me of anything. Not an Administrator, rather an editor. There are not thousands of lives at stake; this is an encyclopedia, so keep it that way. I also suggest you take your arguments; or issues with the article to the talk page. Thank you -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Grammar School

Hi Melbourne Star,

My edit on the Manchester Grammar School page was due to original sources that I hold in the MGS archive (I am archivist here at the Manchester Grammar School). I don't know how to correctly cite this original material on wikipedia, but it is certainly more reliable than the secondary sources (Bentley, Phythian) that the majority of the article cites. Can you help? I am hoping to significantly improve the historical part of the page by using the original sources that the archive holds, rather than the printed secondary sources.

Best wishes

Rachel Kneale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.42.66 (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rachel Kneale!

welcome to Wikipedia :)

I would sure love to help you out with citing those reliable sources for you. Is the sources from a book, or from a website?

PS: I highly recommend you use your own Wikipedia account, User:Rachel Kneale, just so there is no confusion.

Regards, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Melbourne Star,

Yes, I only realised I was logged out once I'd sent the message!

These sources are not printed library material, they are original archive material. For example, the information on the number of pupils at Manchester Grammar School comes from an original source - the printed report of the school bursar to the governors produced by the school at the time. Other examples would be handwritten pupil records and governors minutes, school magazines, official school documentation etc. So, all highly reliable sources from the school itself, but all unpublished. I'm not sure wikipedia really allows for this type of source, which is a shame, as it is all as reliable as you can get

Thanks!

Rachel

I'll discuss with a few other editors, and see what can be done. Thank you for being patient :D -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

G'day Rachel. Melbournestar suggested that I chime in.

You can cite internal documents to the school in the same way as you'd cite anything else, using Template:Cite_report. Fill in the blanks (i.e., after each =) and add it as a reference after whatever claim it is that you need a citation for: {{Cite report |author= |date= |title= |publisher=Manchester Grammar School |page= |accessdate= }}.

Also, make sure you sign your posts with ~~~~. :) ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's incredibly helpful!

Rachel Rachel Kneale (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Carnegie editing

deleted my factual editing of the Carnegie, Victoria wikipedia page. This is deeply unsettling due to all my facts being blatantly correct. I live in Carnegie, I have for 40 years and I know these facts are correct because I saw them happen before my eyes. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.37.147 (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

By 'factual' you must mean 'fictional'. You also must be talking about the mythical Carnegie, that has that King, you reffer to as Slick Nick. Regards, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 13:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding ";)"

LOL. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't help myself :D -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 20:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Danjel's talk page.
Message added 10:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Looks good, needs more references/content. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

+1 ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahmed mohamed elSeyoufi

Anyone (except the original article creator) can remove a speedy notice. As it says on the notice: "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice". You should not replace a speedy notice once it has been removed, instead you should use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. As you said on my talk page " Also, the subject may be this... he may be that... but we don't know this" which means it cannot be speedy deleted. Speedy deletion is only for articles where there is no doubt. In particular, CSD:A7 only applies if there is no claim of notability. If there is any claim of notability, whether it is sourced or not, then A7 does not apply. Please re-read WP:CSD. Please go back and remove the speedy deletion notice. You should not have replaced it. Thanks,. Sparthorse (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You have no valid reasons to removing the Speedy in the first place, an Administrator decides whether or not it is kept, not you. Also, I suggest you take a read of the article's talk page. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I have every ground to remove the speedy notice, since it is invalid. Any editor can remove speedy notices, except the original author. It seems like you haven't properly read [{WP:CSD]]. Second, I did leave a message on the talk page, but you removed it. I sincerely hope that was an accident. Sparthorse (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, was an accident. Other editor continues to add duplicate sections. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Seventh Key

Hello, I've removed the speedy deletion tag you added to this article, as I think it's pretty clear what the article is about. I've also added a reference. Note that the article was only two minutes old when it was speedied: it might have been better to add a "confusing" or "rewrite intro" tag instead. Thanks, Filing Flunky (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, by all means you are correct ~ shall do the same to others, next time. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For reverting vandalism on my User page. It's ironic because you're 15! Although I'm not aware of the drinking laws in Australia... Alexroller (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

He's probably a lightweight, too. --Davejohnsan (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You are most very welcome, Alex. At 15 I should be out drinking with friends, but I think I have chosen a more better path - Wikipedia haha :)

Though, when I have one in me, difficult to stop :) Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Chardonnay

The entire history of Chardonnay is pure conjecture, not fact. Therefore, I don't understand why the alternate history I added was edited out by you. I had learned of this alternate history while in Israel, and actually it makes makes very good sense, especially when the traditional history suggests it was in fact introduced by Monks around the time of the crusades...

My edit was clear by stating this as Alternate History, not a fact. Shouldn't the reader be entitled to this alternative information? After all, it's not wrong unless it can be proven so, and from my reading of the original article, nobody really has any idea what they're talking about anyways...

BTW, is monitoring Wikipedia your job?

   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MelbourneStar&action=edit&section=new#  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosco28 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 

No, monitoring is not my job, just like it isn't yours adding unsourced content - hopefully. Anyway I'm not saying your edit was full of misinformation - but it was unsourced. Wikipedia has a set of policies that must be followed. Your contemt unfortunately is ignoring these two policies (plus others): WP:OR & WP:V. If you are to add the content again, please make sure you do so with the appropriate sources. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

IP User 122.107.175.113

I have been cleaning up vandalism from this IP for the last five minutes. Since you were the one who delt with them last any help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Kurish (talk • contribs) 01:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Report the IP to WP:AIV if it makes another vandalism edit. --Davejohnsan (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's Be Friends!

hey bro. do u know natalie tran? do u have a facebook? add me :) and add alexroller, we could become a great threesome group of buddies! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyy47 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh hi :) sorry, but am I supposed to know you? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Big Brother: Secrets

The youtube ad is not factual, We are supposed to stick to Confirmed stories only by the network and the production company. I will be calling them in the morning to get a Official Statement and if they decline to give a Official Statement on the Name please revert it back to Big Brother: Secrets even though The secret story has not yet been officially confirmed and that the show being marketed as Big Brother Secrets has not yet been Officially confirmed by Southern Star although other sources believe it has been styled as Big Brother: Secrets. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expert TV (talk • contribs) 12:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by mutiple news outlets. The advertisement, was not originally shown on YouTube, but was, and still is being shown on the Nine Network. If you are unable to get confirmation, that is not grounds to removing the "Secrets" part - it's already been confirmed by multiple news outlets. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The show being scaled back with a tighter budget and that housemates have to reveal other secrets has not been confirmed. I will be changing the changes to format section because none of that has been confirmed. the changes to format are.IT’S BACK! The ‘mother’ of all reality shows returns to Australian television on Channel9 in 2012. The show that changed the face of Australian television will be reborn on Nine with a bold new attitude and a brand new host, Sonia Kruger. Big Brother: new house, new housemates, new twists, new host. Thank you

There are references, you are just ignoring them. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Big Brother Dreamworld location 2001-2008?

The Original home of Big Brother Australia by a reliable source was seen standing from 2001-2009. And the house is still located at Dreamworld and is not fully demolished as you can see on neamap. and Google images show the house as of 2009. The has been no Official statement as to where the house will be. So the location should be reverted to 2001-2011 but to not cause confusion 2001-2009. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expert TV (talk • contribs) 12:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing the facts, you obviously read the source correct. But where is the source? You haven't provided it. Please do, if you are going to make changes like that, otherwise edits such as that will contrivine with Wikipedia Policy "No Original Research". Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 13:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

hi Melbourne Star

I would just like you to help me out here, i'm fairy new to editing but i've noticed people keep reverting the Big Brother Secrets Australia 2012 page, to Big Brother Australia 2012 when Channel 9 have officially announced that is the name of the program and it isn't a follow up to the normal Big Brother, if you could help to make sure that it stays that way that would be much appreciated :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbruv2011 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia!

The issue, which is what a few editors and frankly myself, have with this move, is that we would like there more details released before there is any moves on the articles names. We've been wrong before, and as a precaution, we would like the community to discuss. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Episode count of Cabot

In this diff, did you intentionally increase Cabot's count by two episodes or was that number already one behind before you made the edit? --Davejohnsan (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I hadn't updated her previous count prior to the latest episode :P -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just checking! The DA's have gotten so little on-screen time this season that it's hard to remember what episodes they've been in. Also, would you mind chiming in here? I think a third opinion would be helpful. Thanks. --Davejohnsan (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I know - I'm pissed off with that. I hear Cabot has only been locked in for 5 episodes; Cutter for 4; Novak (don't know how many) but either way, these crucial characters aren't getting enough screen time. I sympathize with Benson how she's lost Stabler, but she doesn't need to be a bitch to poor reccurring Novak about it. Anyway, barring my moral outrage, I was actually going to reply at your talk page, anyway... but personally I just think that info. regarding the themes of the UK L&Os are simply not worth mentioning. It's the same show; Same characters; Same storyline -- same everything - except a 50 second theme. Really? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I was tired of pussyfooting around, but for some reason I had a feeling another foreigner's opinion would be beneficial than my own. I totally didn't even consider that you may have been following my page, though. Feel free to reply for me anytime. :P --Davejohnsan (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Twigs (disease)

Hey MelbourneStar, how do you do. Just looking at the above article. "Dr. Harry Butts" + "Noodle Arms" = hoax, I'm pretty sure. Thinking that doesn't need to see seven days of legitimacy. The Interior (Talk) 11:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Silly me :S ...Apologies, and thank you! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely one of the more creative ones, though! The Interior (Talk) 11:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg Grunberg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Grunberg

Under his picture it has the incorrect year of his birth. It should be 1966 to match the article. I wasn't able to edit it, because I don't know how. It has been changed back to the incorrect date. It says 1976 when it should be 1966. Errors drive me crazy. That is why I created an account to fix it. I would appreciate your help in this matter. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpe78 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Content of Aiplex on Wikipedia

Dear MelbourneStar,

The content updated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiplex_Software is by Aiplex, as we do not want to see detrimental information about us on your site.Request you to update the information as per our website as earlier done.

Thanks, Mahesh mail: mahesh@aiplex.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiplex12 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would rather see "detrimental" reliably sourced content, then copyrighted material in an article, any day of the week. Now, may I ask, what content exactly is so harmful - because the content that is currently in the article, is sourced - if it weren't I'd remove it by all means. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Aziz Shavershian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Kurdish

Chadstone Shopping Centre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Zara

Said Shavershian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Kurdish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Welcome

How did you sign the comment that was left unsigned, like how did you get it to show? Dan653 (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't, a bot known as User:SineBot does it automatically (usually). However, it gets annoying, because you may be replying to an IP who hasn't signed, and then SignBot quickly signs it ~ whilst your editing - so an wp:edit conflict happens :/

Anyway, thanks again! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone must really dislike you, I just reverted vandalism on your page again :) Dan653 (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ips/Editors who vandalise, hate me - by the way you're going, they'll hate you too! ;) They can't stand editors are anti-vandalisers :)

Thanks for reverting! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So you seem good at wiki code. If your ever bored one day could you do something to my ridicuoulsy long userbox list? Thanks. Dan653 (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I just realised we're like nearly the same age - that's cool as. I can assist you with your "ridicuoulsy long userbox list" -- what would you like done, exactly? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

RE our recent interaction on shopping malls.

I have no particularly strong interest in this group of articles, but they were mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockdale Plaza and it did a pass though them marking some of them up as I felt appropriate. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That is fine, and totally appropriate - but with the Hornsby SC AFD ~ shouldn't you look for a few sources - instead of being hasty and putting it up for deletion? I have already found sources. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

bermuda saints page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I still don't understand why this page was deleted. For evry rapper there is a page, When I get 1000 + requests about a wikipedia page for Bermuda Saints it is deleted. It is important because a lot of music lovers come to Wikipedia to find out things about their favorite musicians. So Wikipedia isn't there for these people?

The info given is correct and will be edited everyday since this band keeps groing and groing. So please re consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuminamoja (talk • contribs) 02:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has been deleted - Not by myself, but an Administrator ~ I do think it was appropriate to do so, aswell. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)