Jump to content

User talk:MelbourneStar: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Kyo to (talk | contribs)
Added content
Tags: canned edit summary Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 33: Line 33:
}}
}}
{{TOC hidden}}
{{TOC hidden}}

Hello I recently added the citation from original source and edited Vrishali why are you deleting my edits ?
Kyo to


== I love your skills ==
== I love your skills ==

Revision as of 10:55, 14 September 2016


Alt text
usercontribscountemaillogspage moves

Contents

Hello I recently added the citation from original source and edited Vrishali why are you deleting my edits ? Kyo to

I love your skills

Thank you for your fantastic job in editing2602:306:CDEF:6110:8DDA:86C1:8EA:2F96 (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I try to edit something from published info., but it won't let me. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDEF:6110:8DDA:86C1:8EA:2F96 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@2602:306:CDEF:6110:8DDA:86C1:8EA:2F96: thank you very much, I appreciate that.
Please review our frequently asked questions on how to edit; It's exhaustive, but you will no doubt get the hang of it. Regards, —MelbourneStartalk 03:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you, but what is your name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDEF:6110:8DDA:86C1:8EA:2F96 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beryl Crockford

You deleted an edit to her page. The edit was to indicate her death; she passed away this morning. There has not been a publicly available death notice, but she is definitely no longer alive. Please do not revert such changes. It is both inaccurate, and offensive.

If you would like a source, cite this. I knew her personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.200.238 (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@49.195.200.238: My condolences.
Unfortunately, I have had to re-undo your edit, as per Wikipedia policy. We are unable to rely on original research — we need verifiable published reliable sources. I mean no offence by this, but I'm sure there has been instances on Wikipedia where we have relied upon the words of people (rather than published sources) and have been quite wrong.
News regarding this subject will no doubt be made available in the coming hours, or days, and by that stage: we will be able to note her passing. Until then, Wikipedia is unable to reflect this sad event. Kind regards, —MelbourneStartalk 12:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beryl Crockford

Hi,

I'm not the user who made the edits to the Beryl Crockford article, however I can confirm she died this morning. I understand the original research policy. I wanted to ask whether you reverted the edits regarding her death because you felt it was necessary to confirm something as sensitive as a death or purely because an unsourced statement was made and policy doesn't allow that?

If the former, it is verifiable online, although only in a Facebook page - not enough for a source but enough for you to be satisfied. https://www.facebook.com/HenleyWomensRegatta/posts/1083927694977219


If the latter, I would point out that it would not be the only unsourced detail in this article, let alone the hundreds of thousands of other biographical articles. Would it be possible to exert some leniency?

Either way, please be mindful that whoever made the post claims to have known Beryl personally and is making the edits on the day of her death. If you feel you need to enforce policy rigidly please try to be sensitive about it; at the moment your manner is (perhaps inadvertently) a bit brusque in the circumstances.

On another point - what if her death is never reported in a primary source? I expect it will be, but perhaps it won't. Does the article continue to refer to her as a living person ad infinitum? I guess there must be other similar cases, is there a policy?

Best regards,

--Mralph72 Chat 12:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing as I missed the discussion above. I can see you are not being deliberately offensive. Bearing in mind you now have clear evidence (albeit not encyclopedic) that she died, and so can be sure there is no mistake being made, I wonder if you would be able to retain the detail in the article until a verifiable source can be cited?
Best regards.
--Mralph72 Chat 12:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mralph72: Thank you for your concerns, I'll address them as best as I can.
I'll be taking this up with the relevant noticeboard, as I personally believe we ought to make note of this event; however, I'm bound by Wikipedia's policies – as are you. WP:BLP, which applies to recently deceased people too, is very direct; it requires that we add verifiable reliable sources to articles concerning BLPs; and to immediately remove any content that is unsourced (or poorly sourced) contentious and/or potentially libelous material, pursuant to WP:BLPREMOVE. I mean no disrespect – we just have a bit of red tape to get through, before we figure out what to do. Kind regards, —MelbourneStartalk 12:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have alerted others at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Beryl_Crockford. —MelbourneStartalk 12:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol Justice is Neo-Prohibitionist

I made those edits to the page for Alcohol Justice because we need to get the word out that they are a neo-Prohibitionist organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B12A:3A1E:49D8:7CBD:CC03:526B (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1002:B12A:3A1E:49D8:7CBD:CC03:526B: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy organisation. Please do not add material such as this, because it is unconstructive and will be removed henceforth. Regards, —MelbourneStartalk 13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article "Malika Parbat"

I intend to edit this article, as in 2011 I had edited and brought it in good shape. However, lateron, it was edited and its present form is not correct.

It talks about climbing the mountain, but again mainly on Malika Parbat North peak. Whilst, Malika Parbat main which is actually known as Malika Parbat speak nothing in the article. I think that you did the right thing, but still I believe that there is a need to rectify the article. I have written a detailed book on this mountain which has been published and present article is totally on contravention. Malika Parbat North was never climbed by the two different parties in the year 2012 however they managed to climb the Fore Summit, which should have been mentioned. Yet the guy namely Imran Junaidi who had edited it is no more who died in a mountaineering accident. So history need to be corrected giving them the credit of what they had actually climbed.

Regards,

Afzel Scherazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwppak (talkcontribs) 14:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afzel/@Mwppak: welcome to Wikipedia.
The content you wish to add must be verified by published reliable sources; so, if you have such sources, provided that they are secondary and credible, please feel free to add said content. Also, please do not remove content that is well-sourced, and replace it with unreferenced content. Kind regards, —MelbourneStartalk 15:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

My edits were all literally true, from my first hand experience going there. I didn't say anything that was untrue, and i think its important for people to know what TCS lacks in mental health support. How is that Vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.66.101 (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@72.137.66.101: Your edits are clearly unconstructive, lacking in neutrality, reliable sources. Please cease making such edits, or just take your advocacy elsewhere. —MelbourneStartalk 05:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bern

Hi Melbourne Star! Thank you for being interested in the Alan Bern Wikipedia entry! I'm new to this so I may make some mistakes at the beginning. I understand why it's not appropriate to add links as a kind of self-promotion. My intention was to document that something really exists. I appreciate your guidance! Best, Alan Bern, September 14, Alanbern (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Alanbern: welcome to Wikipedia!
I'm sorry I had to undo your edits. We do have quite a number of policies that we must follow.
On a side note: please have a read our guideline on conflict of interest editing — that's not to suggest that you will be barred from editing your own article (although it's strongly discouraged -- we recommend you suggest edits on the article's talk page). It's to give you an understanding of how Wikipedia operates, and the organisation's expectations regarding such editing.
Hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Best, —MelbourneStartalk 06:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your comments on my talk page?

Hi again, MelbourneStar! Is there a way for me to respond to your comments on my own talk page, or do I do that like this (on your talk page)? Alan Bern, September 14, 2016Alanbern (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanbern: whichever is more convenient for you. If you'd like me to talk to you on your talk page, feel free to let me know. —MelbourneStartalk 06:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand now, thanks! So, here's a question. I linked to the Exploratorium Berlin, because it's one of the most important places in Europe for research, teaching and creative work on music improvisation. I also teach occasional workshops there, but my reason for linking to it on Wikipedia is just because I think it really deserves to be known and people might like to follow up the link. Am I thinking about this in the wrong way?Alanbern (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanbern: Yes and no. Let me explain further:
On Wikipedia, we create articles on the basis that the subject is notable.
If the Exploratorium Berlin is notable, then an article ought to be created – instead of an external link. If it's not notable, an article won't be created and hence: neither will an external link. Notability is determined on the grounds of: reliable sources which demonstrate notability; that is, sources like newspaper articles, books, other publications etc.
So, because the subject you mention has no article, it's notability is questionable. An external link is innapropriatebut, you would be able to mention the Exploratorium Berlin, provided you have cited a reliable source which establishes its notability, and hence: why it ought to be included in the article you're editing.
I will also note, the Exploratorium Berlin has a German Wikipedia article (Exploratorium Berlin); maybe you could use this as an example, should you wish to create an article on the English Wikipedia regarding the Exploratorium Berlin. Kindly, —MelbourneStartalk 06:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARM wiki

I am the source as a former member — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:807:8001:66EC:B15E:4AA1:89E9:BFF0 (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:807:8001:66EC:B15E:4AA1:89E9:BFF0: welcome to Wikipedia!
Unfortunately, you won't be able to add the content you wish to add, unless it is verified by reliable published sources (ie. books, newspaper articles, and so on). Thank you, —MelbourneStartalk 10:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Buck

I made an important edit. Ken Buck is the devil himself and that needed to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.127.221 (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@146.151.127.221: Don't vandalise Wikipedia again – otherwise, you may lose your editing privileges. Regards, —MelbourneStartalk 10:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]