Jump to content

User talk:MelbourneStar/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Potts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Regrading tollywood page

i'm compltly opposing the merge of tollywood to List of highest- grossing indian films and i completly support to make tollywood page dont mege the artcles of highest grossing telugu movies to indians movies . -akhi@l!Ak 7:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak-Akhil (talk • contribs)

You can oppose the merge — on the article's talk page (here). But if you continue to blank articles, like this – it's you who may lose their editing privelages. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Killers

may i please leave my edit there for the time being just to show a few people. I would appreciate it if you would not report me until Thursday @ 3:30 (Georgia Time) if necessary. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzybella1026 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In short, no. Your edits constitute to vandalism, which is completely unacceptable. The fact that you'd like to keep your inappropriate content additions in articles "for the time being just to show a few people" is deeply insulting to the Wikipedia project we are trying to build, and hence won't be tolerated. Please edit constructively, or don't edit at all. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Time's revert edit

Please see (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tet_Offensive&diff=608164787&oldid=608157301)

All of them are valid, but Thetimearechanging removed them and without a reason. I don't want to Edit warring, please stop him!113.190.46.114 (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The alternative to edit warring isn't getting someone else to edit war for you. It's to discuss the matter with the user in question. I believe that's the best path forward here. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 03:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for my talk page revert. I tried summarizing an article revert but that didn't seem to get noticed. I tried his talk page and also the article talk page. I don't want to invite an attack so I'll take any advice from you on an extra step I could have taken to avoid future problems. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Fyunck, you have handled this issue in the most proper way I can think of. You undid edits that weren't explained; you explained your reasoning on their talk page; and further, you created a discussion on the article's talk page. It is certainly difficult to reason with people who don't reply to their talk page messages (they didn't), add unsourced content into articles despite warnings not to; have the nerve to tell you to "fuck off" and claim that you're apprantly "ruining everything", and lastly, don't even bother participating in the discussion that they should have initiated in the first place. So in my view, you did all you can; you were civil and assumed good faith; they, did not. —MelbourneStar☆talk 07:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

update on find my past

Am now totally confused. Did you remove my initial update? If so, fine. But, you see, find my past is going around deleting the truth about their current shambles of a site, and also censoring any criticism, and thought it was they who had removed it. The only evidence I have is from personal experience of their website, from friends' personal experience, and from the website 'Can't Find my Past' - what should I put as a reference please? regards Margaret Georgiadou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Columbus008 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Margaret, and welcome to Wikipedia!
I undid your edit based on the following reasons:
After reading your post, the only thing I can suggest you do is that you continue looking for a reliable source - that isn't your own experiences, somebone else's, or another website with a questionable reliability. Otherwise, the content simply cannot be added into the article, at this stage. Hope that helps and explains the situation! —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi You left me a message (columbus008) re my update on findmypast. How did the original article get posted then? Guess there's no way I can warn everyone about what is happening on findmypast! Shame, because big business here is conning thousands of people. I would have thought the personal experience of hundreds, if not thousands, of people would be verification enough...... Eh - money wins! regards Margaret Georgiaodu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Columbus008 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi MelbournStar Sorry to bother you again, but I added a citation and still the comment has been deleted. What did I do wrong this time please? The citation referred to Chris Paton's published comments. He is a well-known, well-published genealogist. regards columbus008

Hi Margaret, and apologies for this belated response.
Another editor had reversed your edit, citing similar reasons to why I had previously undone them: the content isn't written in a neutral point of view. I'll also add, that it relied heavily on an ambiguous source – that further can't be verified as it isn't available for one to see it's reliablity. I know it's frusturating, but a reliable source (like a newspaper article, for example) would surely do the trick. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please help me

Epic (2013 film) being vandalised nonstop by User_talk:116.118.42.60. As it seems that you have also taken action against him, can you pls report him so that he can be blocked again? I do not know how. Minimalist (Let's talk.) 13:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry; a report has been lodged, they will be blocked shortly. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Melbourne. Minimalist (Let's talk.) 13:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Peracha

Melbournestar, Please delete the page which I created before "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Peracha" as I failed to find relevant style of making the content and already this page went on deletion board which I seriously don't want that wikipedia make banned on me for further adding or else thereby I deleted the content of that page since I not learn how to make a perfect content page so till won't try to create any. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlottefarhan (talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Charlotte!
Don't worry at all! you've done absolutely nothing wrong to warrant a "ban" from Wikipedia. I've tagged the article with a speedy deletion tag, and it should be removed soon. In the mean time, if you ever do feel confident to create an article, I'd recommend you have a read of this which should help you out.
If you need any further assistance, please don't hesitate in asking... I'm here to help out. —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

One Sided Agenda

I see you removed my topic because it didn't seem constructive? You mmean it doesn't accept the bias within the article and actually notes truths. What isn't constrauctive is the fact that bias is allowed on these pathetic sites, incriminating certain people with the likes of fake statistics, that anyone can add up does not equal what they are reading. In other words, your site promotes lies. Good site not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.79.4 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, as it says in black and white: your edits were unconstructive. "Good site not" - good bye then if you don't like it. —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How do I request rollback?

As you have seen in my previous incident, I patrol recent changes. I only noticed the vandal from there. However, the old school way of patrolling recent changes has become too cumbersome for me. However, huggle requires that I have rollback. How do i get that? I've looked at the page for rollback requests although I couldn't find the form. Minimalist (Let's talk.) 11:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ipal,
this is the form to request Rollback rights. Good luck! —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Melbourne
I have placed my request now. Thank you. I can see you're also an RCP?
Minimalist (Let's talk.) 12:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed I have been; I haven't be on it for a while, but in my time I used to use it quite frequently. Huggle has filled in that void, quite efficiently too. If you are successful with RB rights, I certainly recommend Huggle. If not, continue with Recent Changes as you'll still find a lot of vandalism to undo and that shall lead you to RB rights. —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Heads up. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Pdfpdf. I saw HiLo48 previously attempted to show the editor more prosperous ways as well; however, Andreas11213 chose to ignore most of it. Andreas has been blocked for a period of a week for their edit warring crusades. After all of what you and multiple other editors have told this user, in conjunction with the block, hopefully they will be more understanding of how the Wikipedia community operates. —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. (I'd missed those things.) hopefully they will be more understanding - Hmmm. (I'm not holding my breath - but then, I am now officially a "grumpy old man" ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
After witnessing the disruptive editing by the user you and others dealt with, I can certainly sympathise. Better to be a "grumpy old man" than, from my impression, an "unruly child" . Regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
LOL! ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Table Tennis England

Hello again,

I have recently submitted a new page on Table Tennis England for approval via my sandbox and have performed a minor edit of the English Table Tennis Association page to reflect the new name of the organisation.

Given the difficulties I ran into with changes to some individual player pages (as you helped me with a couple of weeks ago), I wonder if you would be willing to look at the new article for me, please and if possible approve it?

I appreciate your help (and sorry I find navigating my way around this so difficult!)

Paul

Paul Stimpson (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I've checked out your progress on the article - not bad at all. I'll make a few changes here and there. Also, if possible, find extra sources (like newspaper sources for example) to verify the content and also to express more notability.
It certainly is difficult navigating around Wikipedia if you are new to it... but as time goes by, experience is gained, and it will be a lot easier, guaranteed. —MelbourneStar☆talk 00:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes in Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity

The diagram in this article shows 2 mirrors at the bottom. But actually there should be only one mirror at the bottom. Only the position of the mirror changes for a moving observer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbhishekChakravartty (talk • contribs) 07:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't justify removing a whole section verified by reliable sources. If you believe there is an error, discuss it on the article's talk page (here) with editors, and be specific as to what needs correcting/removing (rather than a whole section). —MelbourneStar☆talk 07:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@AbhishekChakravartty: I have added a clarification to the caption. See [1]. - DVdm (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Otis Williams

To whom it may concern, there were no false or negative statements made only a death date for Mr. Otis Williams of February 18, 2013. Out of respect I was updating this musical legend's profile. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LDBrownsugar (talk • contribs) 07:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

He looks alive and well as per a few weeks ago. Williams has not died. Your statements are completely false, have been reverted. —MelbourneStar☆talk 07:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Isla Vista massacre

Please refrain from censoring what other people post just because you don't necessarily agree with them. Differing opinions are not "vandalism" as you falsely claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luftenberg (talk • contribs) 08:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your "opinion" constitutes to vandalism. Continue to add it, and you may find that your time here on Wikipedia, will be cut short. Free advice. —MelbourneStar☆talk 08:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Years

I've edited many years article related to Wales, Ireland, Scotland, United Kingdom, India, etc. Today I created the portal Portal:Years, yes it needs a lot of editing. But first I would like to join this project. Ping me. OccultZone (Talk) 12:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible vandalism of IP Address: 50.133.226.91

Just wanted to let you know that a user id ip address you have warned before has changed or vandalized another article. Would appreciate if you could join in watching or taking some measures to stop this from continuing happening. Historian (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make sure to have the particular article they like vandalizing, on my watchlist. Best, —MelbourneStar☆talk 23:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference to a messaged i received from you

Hey mate, you sent me a message in reference to me changing information in the anzac day page, just wont to say it wasnt me dont have a wikipedia account dont actually know how to change the information on these pages. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.77.195 (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

FYI, I've done a dummy spit ([or two]). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it was bound to happen; and I certainly sympathise for the frusturation you feel. Their constant combative approach to editing, along with their continuous edit-wars (and hence violations of 3RR) really undermine their work and disrupt the process for other users who have tried to steer them in the right direction. One editor having difficulties with this user could be a simple dispute; however, I can count at least 5 experienced users finding real difficulties with them. I do hope they accept your final warning, otherwise WP:AN/I will be more than appropriate, as this unacceptable behaviour on their part has been extended for far too long. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
ACK. (Thanks). Pdfpdf (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! (How quickly things change ... ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A pity, but as they say... + I do hope that in the mean time they can heed their combative approach was unacceptable and change it for a more collective one. But that may be wishful thinking on my part. We shall see. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed we shall ... Pdfpdf (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC) (Yet another colourful thread in life's rich tapestry!)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your great work fighting vandalism. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 08:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure, Chillum!
They're certainly at it today... —MelbourneStar☆talk 08:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihar

Thanks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashumech527. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

As per your message on RfA, I won't continue editing any more(fighting against vandalism). I don't want to be an admin, no body is looking at history that why I tagged pages for a7? not looking at the reason why I tagged these pages under a7? Only pointing negative things. But I respect every admin and admin comments and oppositions. Meaningless criticism, I am not asking for myself that please grand me admin rights.I asked for RfA to built up the Wikipedia and have admin tools to fight against vandalism under certain terms and conditions(because content creation is not my field). I am quite aware about policies, Before creating my account, I used to learn about Wikipedia policies for 2-3 years. After that I created my account and started editing. Whatever the result of RfA would be(successful or unsuccessful), I won't continue editing anymore. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 10:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That is sad to hear, as I do see you have potential in becoming an admin one day should you choose to stay; however, that is your decision.
With in regards to the CSD tags, I do see them as somewhat problematic; I believe one should have considered this. But I also believe, that you have done great work in relation to undoing vandalism and reporting it too. You have a great future in the latter, as demonstrated by your obvious interest in it. That, for me, is something I always admire in other editors and defending Wikipedia is always a strength. With time and more experience you can work wonders, and become an administrator one day.
In respect to other editor's views expressed on your RfA, I would encourage you not to take their comments as personal attacks, but rather as constructive criticism.
I do hope you reconsider your decision, but if not: It's been a pleasure working with you on the project. All the best, —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Everyone is just in the sort of increasing number of OPPOSITIONS, maiking reason that this user account is new! Not looking at what I have done and what I want to do. Yes my account is new but I am not a new in Wikipedia. I never expected this type of discussion on my experience and contribution. I left out my entire work and started learning about editing and policies in Wikipedia, ANI, AIV, page protection, VP, etc everyday and continued for couple of years before creating this account. But Good to be here A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 11:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Make no mistake, I understand what you mean.
On opposing. Everyone may be doing that; but not to oppose you personally, rather to show you specific areas you can improve on should you go for a subsequent RfA in the future.
In regards to experience. You may have done years of reading on policies and guidelines – that is great, and to your benefit. But editors whom !vote at RfA's look for the practical application of your experience and knowledge of policies and guidelines. Not over two or so months, but rather multiple consecutive months. That best demonstrates experience and understanding of Wikipedia's policies. To know why exactly your RfA has resulted in the way it has, please read this carefully (also read it, should you run again).
Hopefully I have explained things for you. —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihar

HI PLEASE UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH DIRTY INFORMATION IS GIVEN IN THIS ARTICLE LIKE DIRTY TALES REGARDING BHUMIHAR AND AS A PROPOGANDA POSTIVE THINGS AND VALID THINGS ARE DELETED FROM BHUMIHAR PAGE ,SO UNDERSTNAD IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexnews (talk • contribs) 08:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alex, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Firstly, when interacting with other editors, please avoid using capital letters as to not give the impression you are shouting. Secondly, your edits have been undone, as they remove content verified by reliable sources. Further, the reasons provided for those removals, are problematic – you are not allowed to remove content on the basis that you don't agree with it. When you return from your temporary block, please adhere to the advice provided. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 09:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

hi Mr X i want to make some comment on you. you are always referring the fake or defamatory stories of aswani kumar book as the origin of bhumihar brahmin. Any storis or fake rumours can not be cited as a reference. Even the author has mentioned it as a tale and i do not think that i need to tell you the meaning of this word. If u are so keen to know about bhumihar caste then gather all the clans information of bhumihar caste and their origin, that is done by noted personalities like swami sahjanand saraswati. he was a noted freedom fighter and many brahmins refer his book to know all the facts about their origin, since he has compiled it well. If ypu want to practically know the clans you should visit the village of BABHAN(Bhumihar) and ask them about clans and search for their origin. It is a nice sociological topic, you can do phd on this topic just like bibha jha has done. swami ji material will be helpful for you in this course. so i request you repeatedly not to put up some story or myth on wikipedia that is derogatory and contested. wikipedia is the collection of most credible materials not rumours or stories so please do not revert those stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MelbourneStar/Archive_18&oldid=1136164306"