User talk:MelbourneStar/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

3RR Rule

Are you familiar with the rule??? Brian C Butcher 04:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GypsySlide (talk • contribs)

@GypsySlide: you may be unfamiliar with our blocking policy, but I gather you'll be familiar with it soon. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

BLP

Hi. Your removal of that BLP violation at "russian interference" was correct. Even if there were a credible argument that the text is appropriate, you were correct to keep it out until there's consensus that it is within policy. Of course the text does not present this as the authors' "opinion" -- it's stated as a fact, so there is absolutely no doubt that this text violates policy, as you correctly stated. That article has been plagued by POV-pushing, for reasons that are unclear. Thanks for your efforts. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: It does sound like a violation of BLP, doesn't it? It needs to be rewritten to indicate that it is the author's opinions, not as a matter of fact. I've self-reverted my self-revert of a revert, I'm under the impression that satisfies 1RR (considering I only reverted someone else's edit, before reverting my own edits twice). But this seems like a BLP problemo, and hence, best be safe than sorry, I always say! —MelbourneStar☆^talk

edits to Barbara Slavin entry

I am Barbara Slavin and I edited the entry because I have a new title -- acting director of the Future of Iran Initiative -- at the Atlantic Council. Also the description of my book was not accurate. I hope my changes have been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbaraslavinatlanticcouncil (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Barbara (Barbaraslavinatlanticcouncil), welcome to Wikipedia!

Neutrality has appropriately made those changes for you, as can be viewed here.

For future purposes, it will be necessarily that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest editing. This does not bar you from editing the article about you, or any article for that matter; it's something to keep in mind about Wikipedia's expectations of you, should you edit said article again. Such editing is strongly discouraged; instead, we recommend you discuss your edits or concerns re that article, on it's talk page (here) – and another editor will make those changes, should they be appropriate. Hope that helps!

Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Bernard

I have made corrections and additions but did not realise the rule about conflict of interest which I am sorry about. I can ask somebody who knew Bruce well to verify changes and additions. Best, Virginia. Virginia.Verran (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Melbourne Star,

I am very sorry that I inadvertently violated the rules of Wiki by creating a conflict of interest and adding and altering biographical details for Wiki/Bruce Bernard. I hope to be able to correct this situation but will need to find out how to do this. I will need help. Best, Virginia.Verran (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Virginia.Verran, welcome to Wikipedia!

Not to worry, and no need to apologise, we'll sort this one out. Did you want your changes to be undone? —MelbourneStar☆^talk

Lobsang Tenzin

Dear Melbournestar,

Thanks for leaving the message. Would like to inform that i am making these changes on behalf of the Director of Lha Charitable Trust. He is a close associate of Mr. Lobsang Tenzin. There is a lot more work to be done on the page and shall be edited many times in next few days. I shall provide all the required details.Request you to allow editing.

Please feel free to write if you have any further questions.

Regards, Siddhartha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid5926 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Siddhartha (Sid5926), welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm afraid that there are a number of issues with the content you'd like to add, that I'll have to fill you in on. Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and hence, must the use of reliable sources is mandatory — after all, Wikipedia does not allow material that is "[[WP:OR|unsourced"; indeed, content must be attributed by published reliable sources, in the form of books, newspaper articles, and other media – not the words/thoughts of people.

Secondly, content on Wikipedia must be written in a neutral point of view. We do not allow advertising or promotion, whatsoever. We are writing an encyclopedia, not an advertisement – unfortunately, the large amount of content that you had added was not written in a neutral point of view. That cannot happen.

Which brings me to my final point: Wikipedia strongly discourages conflict of interest editing. As the Director of Lha Charitable Trust, your may be susceptible to a conflict of interest – which is only confirmed by the content that you had tried to add in which was full of non-neutral terms. Instead, Wikipedia recommends that you discuss the changes that you'd like to see made to the article, on the article's talk page (here), and another editor will make those changes for you should they be appropriate.

Please head these concerns, as adding unreferenced content, or content that is written like an advertisement – will not be acceptable. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Melbournestar,

Thanks for the information. I see the point. I'll make sure to find credited data next time.

Regards, Siddhartha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid5926 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do, Sid5926, and if you would like help, please let me know. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Low Fantasy page

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.

---

Please correct the Low Fantasy page with the proper edits

The High Fantasy page correctly defines it as occurring in a fictional setting and yet the Low Fantasy page does not define Low Fantasy as occurring in a real setting whether modern or historical (any future setting would be classified as science fiction). This means much, if not ALL, the Low Fantasy page needs to be deleted or largely edited to reflect a proper understanding of the term (someone should also edit anything that needs changing on the High Fantasy page; the examples at least on that page need editing but I have not done a thorough assessment there).

If you need me to send you the edits I provided earlier again please let me know; otherwise I will attempt to edit the page again later and I will expect you not to be a dick about it. I further expect you to actually contribute to the refining of knowledge on this amazing tool we all rely on and are lucky to have in the first place if indeed you are going to take this much of an effort to control the process of how these specific pages are edited. And let me extremely blunt here to be sure there is no confusion: you are being a dick if you delete edits just because they aren't yours or you disagree with them.

Have a good day m8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1402:3E60:68B4:A9B9:9F66:5276 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@2601:1C2:1402:3E60:68B4:A9B9:9F66:5276: Hi there – I can see that you're currently editing off a block evasion – which happens to be a very big no-no on Wikipedia if you're IP/account has been blocked. So I suggest you desist.

Secondly, do not attack other users as you just did on my user talk page. Calling me or others a dick doesn't actually solve anything. Calling me or others a dick actually can get you blocked further. See our policies on personal attacks.

Thirdly, be sure: I will undo any disruptive and unconstructive edits made by you to the Low Fantasy article. Is it because I disagree with your unconstructive editing? absolutely it sure is. You've been instructed not to use the article as a place to discuss edits. You need to use the talk page. I assure you, there's a big difference between the two, as clear as day and night.

This tool depends on people adding content that is verified by reliable sources (yes, that means we can't rely on your opinions as verifiable content – so sorry). Stop your disruptive editing. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not block evading - the admin who responded to my request said I'm not blocked and every time I tried to send an appeal it gave me an error saying I was not blocked and therefore the appeal could not be submitted. Second, I'm not attacking a user, and I'm not attacking you; I'm calling you out for misusing your privileges as an Admin. And third, my edits are not disruptive or based on my 'opinions', and they are not vandalism; my edits provide a starting point for the correct defining of 'Low Fantasy' and is supported by many sources, including those on the High Fantasy page. The High Fantasy page by the way (and for the second time) CLEARLY denotes it as being stories which occur in a fictional setting; Low Fantasy is the converse of that. You're the one editing based on your opinions and clearly pride. I am simply trying to contribute true information where there is a lack. If this message in any way violates template or procedural standards for communicating on Wikipedia I apologize but I do not apologize for the truth and I will continue not doing so no matter how much it frustrates you and I will continue to fight you so long as you fight against the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1402:3E60:68B4:A9B9:9F66:5276 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit: the admin who responded actually said there should be nothing preventing me from appealing but the appeal still says I'm not blocked and I can apparently edit pages without issue and no other pages tell me I'm blocked, as far as I can tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1402:3E60:68B4:A9B9:9F66:5276 (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@2601:1C2:1402:3E60:68B4:A9B9:9F66:5276: I see that you've been blocked again, so when that block expires: I'd suggest you discuss your edits on the article's talk page – here – and not in the article itself as you've now been warned not to do. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like you to be more specific on this; do you mean to say that when a page is revised you intend to delete anything that still requires any sort of editing? Isn't that the exact opposite of how Wikipedia works? I suppose then that is not what you mean (although to be sure I await specifics) so perhaps instead you mean to say that you believe the edits I posted were not edits but instead an initiation of a discussion? If this was unclear I apologize but to set the record straight here, the edits I posted were most definitely not a discussion opened in the wrong place; they were actual edits to the page which, before posting, I wrote up and edited myself to be as correct as possible without knowing the coding for links and references, etc. because the information on the page was false. I'm pretty sure you're aware of this however being that I've already stated it above and elsewhere and you seem to have read those posts - so perhaps instead what you mean to say is that while content edits may be posted and be open to later clarification and/or grammar/punctuation/etc. edits that there is still a basic coding standard on Wikipedia that states that any content edits require links and such to already be coded into the edit or they will be deleted. If this last one is what you intended to say (as seems most likely) then please provide a link to these templates so I can adhere to them, but also please be more specific in what you intend for me to do on the article's talk page if what you intend for me to do there is enlist the help of another who can add in proper coding to my edits. Otherwise you are being unhelpfully vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1402:3E60:85C9:7DD:F75E:82A8 (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional solution: Having reviewed the Low Fantasy page again I realize there's an entirely different solution to all this! The Low Fantasy page is actually mis-titled! It's proper title should be "Low Magic". Low Fantasy is a separate page (with links to the more proper High Fantasy page) that provides the definition I've explained above and elsewhere (and as explained on the High Fantasy page). I will be happy to open this discussion on the Talk page for the article but the only downside to this solution is that it requires the creation of an additional page whereas keeping the same title and just editing the current page to reflect the correct definition of Low Fantasy would be much less work and would not require possibly a second additional page to then explain examples for "High Magic". (If you are not aware: high and low magic refers to the level of influence magic has in a fantasy setting and is akin to something like a 'power level' or 'mana level'; a low magic setting would be A Song of Ice and Fire and an example of a high magic setting would be the Magic the Gathering multiverse; High and Low Fantasy settings can each be either High or Low Magic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1402:3E60:85C9:7DD:F75E:82A8 (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@2601:1C2:1402:3E60:85C9:7DD:F75E:82A8: seeing as we're past the insults, I'm more than happy to engage with you on this topic.

There were a couple problems with your edits, that surely, after you read this, you will understand my reasoning for undoing your edits was not necessarily because I disagreed with their contents – but rather, it was the wrong venue (and I believed that it was quite obviously the wrong venue). I'll explain:

• Low fantasy is an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You know this... yet, you decided to post your thoughts in a paragraph at the very top of the article saying "X is this, Y is that — everything below is wrong". That is despite "everything below" actually being verified by reliable sources; that is, people like you and I have gone to the effort of writing this article which is live on the encyclopedia, have gone to the effort of adding sources to it – and yet you post something that is meant for a talk page at the very top of an article. Another user had brought this to your attention on your talk page among the warnings telling you to stop said editing. We have talk pages for every single article on Wikipedia where editors discuss the contents, merits or anything pertaining to the subject of the article.
• Secondly, as noted above: Wikipedia does not publish original research (your opinions, my opinions are completely irrelevant; You and I can say 'X, Y and Z mean this and that'... but if you don't have a reliable published source to back it up – you can't add it). The paragraph where you explained what you believe the subject of the article is/should be – was completely unreferenced, and hence, original research.

By all means, edit the article. You could very well be correct in that the article as it stands displays incorrect information; if that's the case: feel free to replace said erroneous content with reliably sourced content that is verifiable. But writing on the top of the article about everything being wrong, isn't helpful. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:25, 14 February 2017 (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.

Unsourced edit

"Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Secret Weapons Over Normandy, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)"

I'm reverting changes by a previous user that wiped out most of the article's content. Kindly allow me to continue. 2601:2C3:8000:3E2A:546F:9970:8413:406A (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@2601:2C3:8000:3E2A:546F:9970:8413:406A: Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia!

The previous user was doing the right thing, as the content was mostly (if not all) unreferenced – on Wikipedia, content must be verified by reliable sources – which the content (now removed) did not have any verification. Please do not reinstate said content, without citing reliable sources. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

34th Artillery Brigade

I realize you need cited sources for this page. The information I provided was from my a journal/book each individual in the regiment was given at the end of World War 2. You will not find it in a library or elsewhere due to The 1973 Fire, National Personnel Records Center. The fire destroyed a significant amount of army personnel records during World War 2 including my grandfather, Herman Dolling's records. If you read the passage I entered it is a partial passage and I am hoping to complete it soon. I am typing in verbatim the information given in this book. The book describes the history of the regiment during World War 2. I am hoping to put it in Wikipedia so that others will be able to have the record here and not in a book that is in danger of being destroyed. Please let me know what proof you need of cited sources to stop overwriting what I have entered. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Travesty38 (talk • contribs)

Hi there @Travesty38: welcome to Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, you will not be able to add such information without verifiable reliable sources in the form of published sources – newspapers, books, documentaries, etc. Because I or anyone else (with the exception of yourself) can't assess the veracity of the content you're adding, it cannot be added into Wikipedia. As it stands, such content is original research – which is not acceptable for Wikipedia, per our verifiability policy. Should you find such sources that corroborate the content you wish to add in – feel free to add said content back in with those sources. Until then, please do not add unreferenced content to the article. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Zayed University

Hi Melbourne Star,

Thank you for your message, I am writing in regards to the content removal from our Zayed University Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayed_University

I am seeking guidance in regards to replacing the outdated and at times inaccurate "Controversies and Problems" section on our Zayed University Page with a more updated and current "Zayed University News" section. This section has long been outdated, as the transitional issues recorded under it have been rectified shortly afterwards that they don’t serve current Wikipedia readers or help those interested in learning more about what Zayed University has to offer students, faculty or staff. We are aiming to replace this section with a more updated, useful, and resourceful section that sheds more positive light on what Zayed University administration, faculty, staff and students have been up to (i.e.: in 2016, Zayed University has revamped its website, received the Apple recognition program for its Student Accessibility Services Department, and introduced the Zayed Virtual Bridge education platform which hosts short Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) for those wishing to advance their knowledge and career potential (https://zuvb.zu.ac.ae/) among others initiatives and accomplishments that are more updated and that reflect more positively on what Zayed University truly stands for.) Could you kindly advise on whether I can proceed with the above? Should you have any other recommendations, I would be happy to discuss them as well.

Best, Mona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monazu (talk • contribs) 07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Monazu: welcome to Wikipedia!

From reading this post, I assume you are affiliated with the university in question; please familiarise yourself with a Wikipedia guideline on conflict of interest editing; indeed, what this guideline describes is that if you are connected to the article's subject you are strongly discouraged from editing such article. Instead, we recommend that you discuss your concerns about the article on the article talk page – there, another user will assess those concerns accordingly.

Secondly, the content you wish be removed cannot be removed simply on the basis of it being "outdated"; if it's outdated, feel free to request that new information be added (that must be corroborated by reliable sources) to the particular section(s) as to make updated. But, as it stands: the content that is present is verified by reliable sources and there is no basis for its removal.

Furthermore, Wikipedia forbids promotional material from entering the encyclopedia. So, should you wish to have added the initiatives you're speaking of, they must be written in (1) a neutral point of view, and (2) must be verified by reliable sources, in the form of secondary sources (acceptable sources: books, newspaper articles etc.; unacceptable: media from the university itself).

My advice would be that you simply discuss your edits on the article's talk page — here – as to avoid running into any obstacles. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Iqbal Park

Thanks for the message i have edited the iqbal park article because its been expanded recently. The data already in the article is quite old and does not justify the current status of the Park. Now its called Greater Iqbal Park and its been expanded. See in the reference its been inogorated by Government officials. Reference already proves its current status. If wikipedia want to live in the past, its upto them. i did my part.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.204.207 (talk • contribs)

@39.55.204.207: Hi there. What you did do was copy and paste copyrighted material into the article, not once, but twice. On Wikipedia, we have zero tolerance for copyright violations – and whilst you may not have been aware of this before, please heed this warning now. Should you wish to add content to Wikipedia, please in future make sure the content is verified by reliable sources cited within your edit; further, please never copy and paste content on to Wikipedia from other websites, especially copyrighted websites. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Urgent changes requested to Bruce Bernard page

Hello,

After alerting Wiki to the mistakes on the Bruce Bernard page and correcting them it has now reverted back to it's original uncorrected state because there is a conflict of interest in the corrections I have made and they have been disallowed. I understand that they contravened the correct process but how do I remove glaring errors ? The Estate of Bruce Bernard would like it known that there are inaccuracies on this page. If I am not allowed to correct them and am not allowed to contact somebody to give them the right information (errors were made in published obituaries) because this would be a conflict of interest how will this be corrected ? I understand that there are rules but there are at least two things that I want edited/removed entirely as soon as possible. How do I do this ? Am I not allowed to suggest these changes myself ?

Thank you Virginia.Verran (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Virginia.Verran: thank you for your patience.

So, the content you had added was completely removed because of the conflict of interest concerns at play. This is standard procedure; should you have made inappropriate edits? they won't stay. But, had you made appropriate edits, which I assume there were some appropriate edits: such edits can be returned – by an editor who doesn't have such conflicts of interest.

The approach you're now taking —discussing content on the article's talk page— is the appropriate path to take. It's certainly not quicker or perhaps easier → but, you avoid the conflict of interest hurdle by at least disclosing you have one, and making suggestions.

My advice forward, would be to use the article's talk page and suggest to other editors what should be changed – and said editors will make those changes, should they be appropriate. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Green Brigade

I wish to make amendments to the green brigade wiki page. Some of the information on the page is in accurate whilst other information is inaccurate.

As a member of this group I wish to make amendments to ensure this is correct and upto date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickey1312 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there @Mickey1312: welcome to Wikipedia.

It appears to me that you may have a conflict of interest as a member of the said group, and hence, I must recommend that you carefully read Wikipedia's behavioural guideline on conflict of interest editing. Wikipedia strongly discourages such editing from taking place, and in fact, Wikipedia urges one to discuss concerns or edits on the article's talk page, rather than editing the article itself.

Secondly, because you've disclosed this conflict of interest – the following will not necessarily apply to you anymore (with pertinence to one-half of the changes you wish to make). The content you wish to add must be written in a neutral point of view, and verified by reliable sources (newspapers, books, media; no primary sources) — now, the content you added was not verifiable no reliable source was cited. Because you've disclosed your conflict of interest: you will not be able to make those changes you wish to make; those changes can only be suggested on the article's talk page — here — where an uninvolved editor without such conflict will assess those changes, and make them accordingly, should they be appropriate.

Thirdly, and most importantly → even with the conflict of interest issue aside: you are not allowed to remove content that is verified by reliable sources, without obtaining community consensus to do. This is in response to the other half of your edit, which was the removal of the "controversies" section. You've said the removal was for inaccuracies; if that's the case, open a discussion on the article's talk page as to explain what is inaccurate. Furthermore, because of your connection to the group, it may be reasonable to assume that the only reason you would like such removal of content is because you don't like it — which, in itself, is why Wikipedia strongly discourages conflict of interest editing.

To sum up: as a result of your connection to the group, editing said article would be inappropriate, and hence: discussing such changes you would like to see with the article will be more than appropriate. I hope I've been clear in my explanation – I know discussing content, rather than editing it, isn't exactly quick... but I don't make the rules here. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)