User talk:MelbourneStar/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

The CIA and September 11 (book)

I edited the books content based on the content of the book. Therefore there is no separate citation, since I did not rely on second-hand citations about the book, but rather on the book itself. I referenced the version of 2011, 1o years after, but all the content that is cited is identical between various editions of the book, only an additional afterword was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.13.70 (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you please next time use an edit summary and explain that, because to an editor who passes by, that looks like unsourced content. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Salagama

I would like to first thank you for the great service you had done to maintain the quality of wikipedia articles, but I think unfortunately you have been influenced by certain people who had been against certain castes,my intention of writing this article was purely with the intention of informing the general public of the past history of certain castes, as I my self had been subject to caste discrimination I wanted to shed more light to this subject by painstakingly writing it by consulting many books,if you think it is useless you will be doing a great damage to free media,but please think it over before taking a decision of systamatically deleting articles, thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PRASATIS (talk • contribs)

Hi PRASATIS!

Firstly, thank you for the compliment.

Now, to the nitty-gritty: I haven't been influenced by anyone, but rather the rules of Wikipedia, which you seem to be consistently ignoring. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. All content must be verifiable, with reliable sources. You as a person are not a reliable published source - anything you say is completely original research - which is forbidden on Wikipedia. You are only allowed to "inform the public" with content that is written in a neutral point of view, and is corroborated with published reliable sources. Edits like these: [1] [2] [3] - are innapropriate, and as Qwyrxian has nicely put it to you (here) - you may be blocked if you continue to add unsourced contentious information to articles again. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit

Hey. I'm sorry, but I can not show otherwise .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.123.87.55 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine... but what do you mean? this, shows nothing. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

the giant eagle page

you just wrote me about a change I made to a Giant Eagle page. I did not have a citation for now, but I will get one. You're doing a great job, thanks. Have a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.104.58 (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that!

Please make sure the citation is a reliable source (a newspaper article, perhaps), and that the content is worded in a neutral point of view. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

could you please revert all the unsourced edits by the anon in the nadar caste article.no offence i am having probs with internet.thank u.Mayan302 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

yo

What did I do to Mike Bragg? I forgot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbylee (talk • contribs) 07:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing constructive, that's for sure. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Grabby Awards

Hi, I realy dont understand, why the information of Grabby Awards is repetedly deleted here. You own reverted Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's deletion. I tried to discuss there, no response. Please, explain to me. --Strachon (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Strachon,

After properly looking into it, I now see your concerns, and I am somewhat confused too, as to why Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has reverted the section, with the explanation "restoration of article deleted by AfD consensus by single user despite objections by multiple users."

The problem I personally see on Wolfowitz's part, is the fact that the AfD is a completely seperate matter, and although the outcome was delete for the article, a section with what appears to be reliable sources in another article (List of gay pornography awards) - seems appropriate. Last time I checked, WP:SfD (Sections for Deletion) hasn't been created yet!

I'll ask Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for some clarification, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thx a lot. --Strachon (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to cut-and-paste the entire text of an article deleted by a virtually unanimous AFD consensus into another article, especially text of this length. In this case, the decision was redirect, and no one in the discussion supported merger. If you want to overturn the consensus, the appropriate route is DRV, not unilateral action. The sourcing is plainly not reliable, especially in the context of BLP requirements; IMDB is generally unacceptable for such content, and whosdatedwho.com is mostly user-generated content and generally unacceptable as a reference here. Not to mention the fact that many of those references are likely based on earlier versions of the Wikipedia article; they weren't in place, as I recall, during earlier debates over the sourcing of porn-related articles. And, of course, such a cut-and-paste merge violates our licensing requirements for text. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting discussion. 1) You say it's cut-and-paste. Any proof of that? As you can see ([4]), the text was not copied from the deleted article. It's not even been copied from anywhere. It was translated from the Czech version of the article, which has been built, year by year, by myself on base of referenced sources - see history. 2) If any particular source is in question, use {{Citation needed}}, {{Better source}} etc. I can add more sources like AVN.com or Gayporntimes.com, which are serious and well known adult video industry media. --Strachon (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see.

Nice to see a fellow Melbournian on here doing a great job at reverting vandalism. AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

I couldn't help but notice you've been active for a week, so if you need any help with anything, feel free to ask!

Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 23:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Link

Hello Melbourne Star.

I'm a permanent ALP voter.

I believe the link I posted and you removed at the ALP page is appropriate because it is a history view of how Labor and other political parties have performed as a registered party from 1901-2010. The stats are verified by the AEC.

I don't see why Newspoll, an unofficial figure, can promote their stats on pages. Look at electoral system of australia and parliament of australia.

What would happen if I put the rank table on the page without the link?

And where do you recommend the appropriate place is for the link?

And what happens if I reinstall the link?

What authority do you have?

Who do you vote for?

I can see why you may not want the link if your team is losing :-)

Theo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo Pertsinidis (talk • contribs) 00:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Theo,

First of all - I couldn't really care less who wins and who loses - it's politics.

Secondly, the link you provided, is completely innapropriate. The site you provided fails Criteria 1, 10 and 11 of Links normally to be avoided, and itself is not a reliable source.

If you continue to add this external link to articles, despite reading what I have just said, I will report you for the violation here, and you may be blocked. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your website, sorry, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 00:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Australian Federal Rankings

Hello Melbourne Star,

Further to the link https://sites.google.com/site/theopert that you removed,

Can you answer the unanswered question in my previous post?

What are you going to do about Newspoll links to THEIR website. Their stats ARE NOT official.

What would happen if I put the rank table on the page without the link?

What authority do you have?

TheoTheo Pertsinidis (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My answer is directly above this post. And if the Newspoll links you are referring to are from this site, then they are reliable. If you're referring to Newspoll links within newspaper's, they are reliable. If you're referring to Newspoll links within blogs, and personal websites - they are not reliable. Hope that clarifies things for you!

Also, if you were to add the stats in a table, minus that innapropriate source - they will be removed per our policies on No original research and Verification.

I have the same authority as any other Wikipedia editor has. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you regard the Australian Electoral Commission as a reliable and notable source?

The Liberal party and National party are registered as separate entities

yet Newspoll are showing the Liberal and National stats together causing

an inflated political bubble... or fantasy.

My table at https://sites.google.com/site/theopert shows the parties as registered at the election... a true and accurate account of history.

The Storm may have beaten my Dragons in 1999 but they did have a Super League referee for a Super League team... so I fail to see your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo Pertsinidis (talk • contribs) 04:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think what you've done with that website is great - but barring that, what I personally think is totally irrelevant. That site does not meet WP:ELNO - it's a personal website, an equivelant to a blog. Wikipedia only allows content that is verifiable by multiple reliable sources - not by blogs/personal websites, that can have content that is out of date, free to manipulation, and written in a non-neutral point of view. The Australian Electoral Commission is reliable, so a source from their website, is appropriate - not from a blog/personal website. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Australian Federal Rankings

Would I be out of place saying:

The Australian Electoral Commission is reliable, so a source from their website is appropriate, so a summary table sourced from the Australian Electoral Commission data is also appropriate, as long as the table has a reference to the Australian Electoral Commission as the source of the data.

Personally I've been diagnosed with schizophrenia and I have auditory hallucinations... I hear voices... and now I think I've got a headache.

Theo122.108.152.247 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your ordeal - perhaps a break from this, will be beneficial, because over here at Wikipedia, it does get stressful at times

"The Australian Electoral Commission is reliable, so a source from their website is appropriate, so a summary table sourced from the Australian Electoral Commission data is also appropriate, as long as the table has a reference to the Australian Electoral Commission as the source of the data." Yes, but make sure all the content/stats are corroborated by the AEC source, and not by a blog/personal website. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit undone

Hello Sir/Ma'am,

I would like to know why my piece at the end of the article in the page "Beauty" was removed. It is true factual information and is relevant in every case.

Ah,

Who am I kidding, I was doing it for my girlfriend. But I do find it annoying that you had to remove it just before she saw it. Could have waited until tomorrow, mate.

Also, Melbourne is a very nice city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimTheKing (talk • contribs) 10:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi JimTheKing,

This is a serious encyclopedia - meant for "true factual information", and whilst it may appear nice & sweet to have done this for your "goddess of beauty and love, Aphrodite, has been believed to be resurrected in the form of a 14 year old girl named Brianna" girlfriend, your edit in the context of Wikipedia, was unconstructive - and vandalism. Instead of editing articles, unconstructively, perhaps flowers for your girlfriend would be more appropriate next time. I tend to agree; Melbourne is a very nice city. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey MelbourneStar; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Okeyes! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 22:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Jimmie Angel

You made a mistake in saying I vandalized a 'Jimmie Angel' page? That wasn't me, I don't even know who that is, not sure what you're talking about there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.87.27 (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

The edit/s were made via your IP address, almost two years ago. One of the edits can be viewed here. Perhaps you have a shared IP address? If so, you may create an account to avoid future irrelivant notices. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the fool using my computer just awhile ago, it was not done w/my permission or desires. It shall not happen again. 69.161.72.193 (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Shit or get off the pot

Please review shit or get off the pot. A "pot" is a toilet, not a drug. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not having that in an edit summary all together is appropriate, in such a heated environment. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 00:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

My link was removed

I was just adding a link for further information on Black Death related to Plague — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.196.153 (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Trigger happy?

Amy trying to add the reference before you reverted it. What is the hurry to revert? Have some patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.91.113 (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No hurry, next time you should actually indicate that you're adding a reference - and you wouldn't be here complaining about someone reverting your unsourced edit. Cheers, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Change in the page Shaktimaan

Hello sir, the Hindi T.V. Serial that was aired on Doordarshan (National Television) in India was highly depending on Superman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakunsoft (talk • contribs) 12:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Shakunsoft, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Could you please provide a reliable source (a newspaper article perhaps) which verifies that claim? Otherwise, it is original research and musn't be added to the article. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

you are wrong

The Nprotect Game Guard software is a part of several free, downloadable MMORPG games that are available on the World Wide Web. The software is designed to act as an anti-cheat iprogram in order to promote fairer play on game servers.

Why uninstall it?

However, the software is very intrusive to your PC system, attaching itself to legitimate Windows applications in order to hide itself and is a severe drain on your PC's resources

for example once you install any game with Nprotect, even you uninstall all component of games you can not get rid of Nprotect Game Guard as rootkit I mean it ANY game, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.166.20.26 (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like an advertisement rather neutral content for an encylopedia. Perhaps re-wording and finding reliable secondary sources (newspaper etc.) corroborating this claim, would be sufficient. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No YOU should realize how serious it is

many users did not know yet how to delete Nprotect as rootkit I finally got rid of those I spended 5 years for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.166.20.26 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

How about you make a blog about it? Because if there are no reliable sources to verify those claims, it's original research. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been around there for a long time just if you are in charge of this page, as your responsiblity, just install any games with Nprotect(ex. Lineage,Lineage II,Tera etc) , then just find it out how to delete Nprotect. there is no anytool. and any anti-rootkit software could not find it.

CAN YOU GET IT? then you will know the whole detail about it.

imagine in you PC, without saying anything Somebody sit in there that is rootkit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.166.20.26 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody owns any articles on Wikipedia, but what I'm trying to say, is that the content you want added in must have reliable sources. If you are unable to provide sources – I'm afraid that I'm unable to help you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I am reliable souce myself. can you get it? I am kind of pionioner around there. so you do not need to be afraid of any rootkit scandal in rootkit it should be. there is nothing we can do that is all about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.166.20.26 (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You sound like you know what you're talking about - However, we only accept published reliable sources. I'm sure there are many venues outside of Wikipedia, where you can help others be aware of this. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

in article 51 of reference in ROOTKIT there is BlackHat reliable source by themself in nProtect Game Guard in wikipedia this is advertisging

even good tool if we can not uninstall as our will, gonna be bad tool so not perfect. and above reliable source you decide is not perfect either. am I right?

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=136414 you should read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.166.20.26 (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, we need reliable sources - newspapers etc. That is not a reliable source, unfortunately. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

you just joke yourself now. offical web site is just reference in Nprotect Game Guard in Wikipedia check it out. are they newspaper? definatelly NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.166.20.26 (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because that is being used for a reference, does not mean other content can be too. Your content is unsourced and therefore can't be added in, unless you find reliable secondary sources. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.alteredgamer.com/pc-gaming-tech/1709-how-do-i-uninstall-nprotect-game-guard/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.166.20.26 (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ANProtect_GameGuard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.166.20.26 (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

in there there is written in wikipedia since there is no unninstall and people wanting to get rid of it often end up formating their machines. Removal is quite simple in fact, just need to del some registry entries that install the rootkit services and reboot, it won't try to reattach until you run some game that uses it.

Now you see. you guys already published in public by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.166.20.26 (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Now could you explain why you delete ? even there is wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.166.20.26 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

reliable source YES wikipedia source YES published source YES so there is no more any reason for you to have right to delete my coments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.166.20.26 (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Completely missing the *reliable source* part. Please read this carefully: WP:WPNOTRS. You have a primary source, you also have a Wikipedia source. Both are not secondary reliable sources. The content you wish to be added into the article cannot be added in if there are no secondary reliable sources. Newspaper articles, are the way to go. Not websites related to the issue. Please stop adding the section into the article. I will speak to you tomorrow about this, but please stop edit warring, because your IP address may be blocked and that's going to help out nobody. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

S. Srikanta Sastri page editing

Hi MelbourneStar,

        Thank you first and foremost for

your kind interest in the editorial process concerning the above mentioned Wikipage. The last link that i incorporated (one for Geopolitics of India and Greater India) was a link to enable people cross reference the afore listed book in its entirety as it is listed for free viewing on the Official Website of this great Indian historian. I was a bit shocked and saddened at the swiftness with which the link was ruthlessly removed. I request you to consider putting back the link thus helping many a discerning history afficianado an opportunity to read a by now out of print book in it's entirety. It is purely in the academic interest. I plan to incorporate many more such links in the coming days.

P.S. The official website or myself stand to gain nothing of a financial nature from directing links to the site from a Wikipage. (should this be a matter of some concern..!)

Yours affectionately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.151.208.38 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for that - you're all in the clear. Don't know what happened there, must have been an error. Apologies for that. If you need anything, please feel free to drop me a message. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks..:-)

118.151.208.38 (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

depressive black metal band

Thanks for taking care of that. The guy didn't seem to make much sense when he kept reverting my edit of adjusting the wording of the entry for Happy Days. I mean I was only adding information that is logged and gathered from here. I wasn't adding them to the disambig page, just changing the info for them >__< — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.131.2 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries; however, I would kindly suggest for future references, that when communicating with other editors, that you remain civil and assume good faith - This and This exchange/s with Touch Of Light seemed a little too heated, and innapropriate. Please keep that in mind for next time. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Premature Closure????

I just happened to come across these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CLA_Building

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neutra_VDL_Studio_and_Residences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Desert_Studies_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southern_California_Marine_Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/W._K._Kellogg_Arabian_Horse_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bronco_Student_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cal_Poly_Pomona_Broncos_men%27s_basketball --Scaldjosh (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you not see a discussion is still ensuing, here? Further, you are unable to close the AfD - because you have !voted - [5] —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hank Green

Hello MelbourneStar!

I apologize if the changes that I made to the article on Hank Green were not helpful.

I am new to Wikipedia and wanted to get started editing articles. I felt that the introduction to the article could be better worded.

Again, apologies!

Best, Nablacdy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nablacdy (talk • contribs) 08:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nablacdy, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

It turns out that there were vandalism edits within the article, predating your edits - so they've been removed, and your edits are all in the clear. If you need anything, please feel free to ask me! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Eye-Fi

If you look at history of this you will see that your reversion has itself been reverted by another editor user:John of Reading. I suggest less reliance on bots, and more reliance on your own eyes. And an apology. John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 17:12, wikitime= 09:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Using Stiki, and couldn't see the edit summary at that time - apologies there. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Neighbours characters

Hi I can confirm that Rhiannon is a new character she will appear in early April as Mason Turner's ex (or current) girlfriend, just when he is getting it on with Kate Ramsay Got this piece of info from Digital Spy but wasnt sure how to cite the source on the Wikipedia page. Check it out if you wish. There is no mention of the actress or of Rhiannon's surname, she is probably just a guest character Cheers NeighboursFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.211.239 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi NeighboursFan,

It's quite simple to cite a source. I'll show you how. For example, if I want to cite Google.com as a source, I would do this:

<ref>www.google.com</ref>

<ref> at the beginning of the link, and </ref> at the end of the link, allow it to be cited as a reference.

It's really easy. If you are still unsure, I can help you out! Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Georgia Guidestones

Hello. I'm wondering why mentioning a possible link between the date March 22nd (3/22) and the secret society Skull and Bones who have the number 322 prominently displayed in their logo is considered by you to be some form of vandalism worth of deletion when put in the "conspiracy theory" section of the Georgia Guidestones page.

For God's sake, the name and image of Skull and Bones is an obvious reference to danger and/or death and the Georgia Guidestones are clearly calling for a ninety plus percent reduction in the world's population, meaning that the Guidestones MUST BE calling for the death/culling (or miraculous rapture or whatever) of some six billion people.

So, pointing out that maybe, just maybe, there may be a connection to the 3/22 unveiling date and the number on the Skull and Bones logo constitutes vandalism??? REALLY??? What are you, in Skull and Bones or something??? Are you one of the lucky five hundred million that are allowed the survive???? Please enlighten me with your reasoning.

The section is called "Conspiracy Theories" dude. And that's where I put my THEORY about a possible CONSPIRACY by a secret society whose name and logo clearly represent death and whose logo clearly and prominently displays the possible unveiling date, and whose mission, purpose and goals are a secret to all but it's members. Pointing out the possible connection is putting forth a THEORY, and implying that there may be a nefarious connection between the Guidestones and the secret society is putting forward a CONSPIRACY THEORY. That's not vandalism when put in the "Conspiracy Theories" section. It's pointing out a very intriguing reality and/or possibility, and at the very least a coincidence worth mentioning. Why do you think somebody included a reference to the possible 3/22 unveiling date??? Why not delete that as well so nobody makes any further connections about a possible CONSPIRACY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.34.179 (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, until you posted this message - I hadn't had any communication with you, or the topic (So I don't know how you've reached me, but that's beside the point now.) I have taken a look at your edits on the article (Eg. [6]) - and they appear to be unsourced. You must provide reliable sources to verify the content you want added in - otherwise it won't be added in. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Lurker comment: This same question was posed and answered at User talk:Dougweller#Georgia_Guidestones. The IP editor keeps adding some unsourced conspiracy theory. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I had noticed that. Well, I've got the article watchlisted, as I'm sure others would - if the same IP or any other editor for that matter, posts unverified 'conspiracy theories' - they're not going to get far. Cheers, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)