User talk:MelbourneStar

Contents

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.