User talk:MelbourneStar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Unsourced information on BLP

Hi MelbourneStar. Hope you are well. Thanks for raising the situation with me, I wish you had done sooner (and I wish I spent more time on Wikipedia so I'd seen it!) The fact of the matter is that you were both in the wrong for edit warring. You were not covered by the exemption for unsourced edits, as it's the information he was adding was sourced (just not properly, or not English). What's more, I'm not certain you should be removing unsourced non-contentious information under that exemption - I certainly didn't see anything contentious in there. Next time, report such information to the BLP Noticeboard. By rights, I should block both of you, but since the edit war has stopped, and I don't actually have time to work out how to properly (I'm too new!), I'll leave you both with a stern warning. Don't do that again, follow dispute resolution and get help earlier. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Thank You Worm ;D I won't do it again (This feels so much like school ;) ) - But before I close this (So I know for future editing), what do you mean the information he was adding was sourced? forgive me if I'm wrong, but there was no references, whatsover - just external links, and "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" would still apply...wouldn't it?

And, I'm not, now, asking you to block this editor...infact I don't want you to do anything to him, but what should I do next time if an editor insults me like that? - Personal attack templates Don't work - he just removed them off his wall. And the only reason he hasn't removed my warnings, and your warning, is because he hasn't been on since. As I have stated many times before to other editors, I have my own little policy: treat me with some respect, I'll do the same to you. Don't "bully" me (name calling etc. or mallicious behaviour) otherwise I won't feel welcome here, I'll leave. I'd like to keep WP seperate from everyday school life if you understand what I'm implying. Really, if this editor didn't say that to me, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, wouldn't we? Barring that, Happy editing, sorry for the trouble, I did get a little (a lot) carried away, I hope your administrative skills improve (which they sure will) so you can block all the annoying 'MelbourneStars' ;) Anyway...I'll start my adoption thing Sunday night...as a way to say sorry? -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just not great at the telling off thing! I'm sure I'll get it eventually.

• On the Zsolt Semjén article, he claimed there were sources in hungarian in this edit [1]. He also said "What OR" not "What is OR", not to taunt you, but because it appears he didn't see any original research. Finally he pointed directly to where he got the source - [2] - the National Assembly homepage - which IS already referenced. Now unless you've got an understanding of Hungarian that I don't, we can't discount the source per WP:NOTENG.
• I read the 3RR exemption as "Removal of ... unsourced ... contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" - that the material needs to be contentious. It specifically says "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." due to this sort of confusion.
• It was a similar situation on György Matolcsy but you went so far as to say the references he added were no good, but didn't explain why.
• We'll actually go through what to do if an editor starts using personal attacks, you can either ignore them, or report them. Have a look at the lesson to get an idea of who to report them to.

As for treating you with respect, I'm being totally open here. You didn't deserve to be called what you were called, but I wasn't the best person to come to, as I'm still not confident with the tools. I did what I could, and if he escalated, so would I. I'd rather the situation was diffused. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Worm, I think you misunderstood me, I'm not having a go at you. You're one of the very few editors here that I come accross, that actually do treat people with respect. Infact your respect was one of the key facts of my vote of support for your administration, and I know that I and many others look towards that. Also, What should I do about this editor -- 178.164.161.207 -- has reverted both of my edits to those articles (his only edit history) - Is there a chance that the previous editor is using multiple accounts after a 3RR warning? All I know is to avoid a block or trouble etc. I'll resort to due course and will let events play out, if that makes things any easier...and with this case, I honestly have no clue, to what will happen further. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 05:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Same ISP, same geolocation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Mhmm...It was bound to be him. Who would want to start off their WP journey -- reverting things, anyway ? Thank You Kudpung and Worm! :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Melbournestar. I did say I'd reply to you more when I had a little more time - which I do for the moment. You're right, I did mis-read your comment about respect, and wanting to be treated with respect is perfectly reasonable. The question comes as to what to do when people stop treating you with respect - you can treat them badly (which ends up in a lose lose situation), you can walk away (which you can only do so many times, and if you care about something it's not something you want to do) or you can follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. As I mentioned, I cover these in my course, so if you're planning to make a start on that I should be able to answer more questions there. We can go through a few hypotheticals.

As for the case, it depends. I'd suggest you go for some outside help a little more experienced in the area. So, you could either go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary to see if someone can confirm the information in Hungarian on the National Assembly homepage. Or you could take it to the BLP noticeboard if you're concerned that the edit violate the BLP policy. I'll leave a note on the other users talk page to ensure he get's the warning if it is the same person. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Worm :) Another editor has actually followed suit, by reverting (on György Matolcsy) the "unsourced" material - I'll stay out of this one.

Anyway, on a totally different note, I'm officially ready to start the adoption process - like 4 months later - After I read over my first lesson The Five Pillars, do I start the test on the same page? Do I write the answers on this page? Thank You. And if you don't have time, I'll try raincheck for next Saturday/Sunday :D Ty -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the general way I work is that you make a note that you're ready for the test, and then I (or you, if you like :D) subst the template for the test across. That means you can write your answers on the adoption page :) If you're ready, I'll subst the first test across now. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I take it back, I've already subst the qs across. Feel free to answer them there, whenever you like :) Worm^TT · (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! I'm going to start on it right now :) I'm actually more excited than nervous =D -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done, looks good. We've got quite a few more lessons though, so let me know if you're ready to carry on there, and we'll have a look at the next lesson. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm! Yes I'd definately like to continue...can I start a new test now? and thank you for your comments, I shall take them on board (sorry if there were times I made absolutely no sense, whatsover) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

ok, well I'll stop contacting you here about the adoption, keep an eye on the page. it'll be updating soon. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! And if you're busy now, we can do the test whenever is necessary for the both of us. I'm fine to do the test now, but if you're busy, just tell me, and we'll do the test some other time :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaga sales

Melbourne I think you might have made a mistake with this edit. The previous source was from June 2010, while this one is from May 2011, hence updated. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi :) I'm a little confused - isn't the edit that I reverted from May, and the current one June?...If it's not, I shall revert my edit. Thanks -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:OR

Hi MelbourneStar! It seems you've been doing some great work, but just a minor point in regard to your edit summary [3]: not having a reference isn't the same thing as original research, so pointing someone to WP:OR might not be the best approach. It is probably best to point to WP:V, as that has a better discussion of what is needed for sourcing. - Bilby (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Bilby, that is very nice of you! the editor that I pointed WP:OR to, on the Chadstone SC article just wouldn't take no for an answer, and wanted to have the store out of the list, when there was no reference at the time confirming its closure. Actually, it was the very same editor that happened to challenge references (20 of which) regarding the centre being the largest in the Southern Hemisphere...The same esitor who just happened to be there in times of dispute...Chadstone Shopping Centre, Gateway Theatre of Shopping, Manhood (Law & Order), A dispute with another editor, and also a Warning template on IP for Vandalism dispute. Barring that, I really don't know what this editor infact wants from me...what I personally want is to have more 'friendly' interactions, instead of the usual opposing I seem to be getting. I have figured out my differences with different editors here over the 8 months I've been here, and I have to work with this editor one way or the other. Wishful thinking? maybe, but I'll still do my best with this editor.

I'm not being smart, Bilby, I actually want to get along with you. The It seems you've been doing some great work surprises me, as I have had the most disputes with you than anyone else here. I'm asking that we put our differences asside, and maybe start focussing on our own editing...learning more skills...helping one another... etc.

You have been helpful pointing this out, which I'm thankful for and appreciate it. I'll take on board WP:V rather WP:OR depending on which guidline best fits the addition of unsourced content. Thank You Bilby, Happy Editing -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, we don't normally need a reference to remove something from a list. :) Given that it wasn't referenced in the first place, I was surprised that removing it because it is no longer open was a problem. - Bilby (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, how did know, at that day, that it had been closed? -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that's an issue. Odd question. - Bilby (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know it was an issue. You came up with that one on your own. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Like most people with an interest in the book industry, I was aware that Borders were shutting down the last of their Australian operations on the 17th, unless they sold out of stock prior that. So I was curious about the status of the store closures, and whether or not a last minute buyer would step in. - 13:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Good, see I asked a question -- hope that didn't create an issue. Also on the note of "I was surprised that removing it because it is no longer open was a problem.", Borders Book Shop is (was) a major store of Chadstone, an anchor...3 levels and has had history with the centre. Removing it, and not mentioning why in the article, is just like ripping a page out of a history book -- people who will read that history book, won't know what happened in that page, that particular time. You did remove the store from "Major stores include", but did you add it to "Past Major stores"? Or take ime and remove the part where it says:

"No. of floors -

• 2 (Chadstone)
• 3 in Myer, Borders and David Jones

So removing a major store, just because it was apparently shutting-down (no reference confirming) "might not be the best approach". Thank You Bilby. Someday, will see eye-to-eye, someday -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If I can make one small, well meant suggestion - you might want to remove the chip. You seem overly aggressive - you made a small error in not assuming good faith when I made the edit, but that's cool, and not worth worrying about. I'm grateful that you cleaned up the other mention in the article, and moved it to closed stores. That was a good idea. - Bilby (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm Aggressive, and Not Assuming Good Faith? Now I've heard everything. See I remember it was you who challenged me in those 5-6 disputes, so don't waste my time by saying I'm aggressive or NAGF. I've done my bit by saying to put this behind us, so do yours. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for zapping the vandalism on our talk pages. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You're Welcome, Anna Frodesiak =D Some Anons don't know when to stop. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 02:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 05:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup this Saturday

	Melbourne Meetup Next: Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/46 - Tuesday 13 August, 2024 (watch) Last: 18 February 2023
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup at North Melbourne this Saturday (23 July). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 16 Hope to see you there! JVbot (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC) (this automated message was delivered to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Melbourne)

Privacy

Hi. Just as a small suggestion - you may wish to remove your edit, as, when combined with other information you've added, is possibly revealing more than it is best to reveal. It's normally best not to include it, as it can be combined with other information to cause problems. - Bilby (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, I'm fine with it seriously :) It's my birthday (which I even have non-private on facebook) and the other two dates are important to me because they're the premiere dates of my two favourite shows. Thank You for the suggestion, anyway. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess all I can do is make you aware - editing WP can get very nasty, so you need to be aware that you may be releasing enough personal information so that someone could potentially identify you, and that may lead to problems. - Bilby (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't make me less popular (liked) than I already am. But at insistance, I shall remove that particular date, and any other very personal dates. Ty -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

just a note to say that I agree with Bilby. Best not to put such info on wikipedia. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it - I know it seems a little odd, but I've had some potentially scary moments while editing. I'm comfortable with the risks, but then I'm big and ugly enough that not much can happen. :) As an aside, you would expect the problems to come from BLPs, but the major off-wiki problems have come from some really surprising sources that I would never have realised would turn out to be a problem. - Bilby (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Law & Order edit warring

Stop. Both of you. There's no point in edit warring over this. Calvin, I appreciate you're being WP:BOLD, but per WP:BRD the next step is discussion. If you're not happy with how the discussion is progressing, then take it to a wider forum, perhaps get a WP:3O on the talk page of the articles in question or an WP:RFC on Talk:Law & Order. It is acceptable for MelbourneStar to remove warnings on their talk page and it is not acceptable for you to re-add them. MelbourneStar, you should know better than to edit war over something like this, try to keep calm. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I am replying to your email, but it seems to be taking a while! Worm^TT · (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get it when it's sent. ty -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I did reply to your email, I assume you slept through it. There's been an update on "Calvin", he's a sockpuppet and has been indef blocked. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Guess I got my birthday wish afterall. Thank you Worm. That message actually brightened up my day. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Obduracy

Hello, re 122.107.175.113, I reinstated your courteous comment about edit summaries (about the seventh!). I fear the heading does say it all in one word, though. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)).

Hi Crusoe8181! Thank you for telling me. Some editors don't seem to understant what an edit summary is :D Anyway, thank you! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ADA Kelly Gaffney.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ADA Kelly Gaffney.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Issue solved. Image had been accidentally removed from article by an editor, but has now been restored. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

New Characters on SVU

I haven't made up my own rule. It's called WP:CRYSTAL and there is precedent--see Two and a Half Men and how they've decided not to add Ashton Kutcher to their infobox until his episodes air. New characters, seasons, episodes, etc. are never supposed to be in an infobox until the character appears in an episode. This was also an issue last year when a new ADA was announced but the actress quit after filming only a few episodes--therefore, she was never in the opening credits.

I suggest it's YOU that needs to discuss before you start randomly reverting pages, and quit accusing and biting just because I'm an IP. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

IP? Please, I have nothing against them, so Don't accuse me of such thing. Oh, and it was not me who violated 3RR -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 22:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, your 3RR is a technicality because you can't accuse me of anything else since you started reverting edits without good reason. Telling me not to make up my own rule in the edit summary is an example of WP:BITE, even if you think I am new. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Barring the fact that you have been editing since 2008, two years longer than myself, let's put this all aside. If you were to be Assuming Good Faith why didn't you take it to the talk page, as was suggested, instead of edit warring? -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Crisco 1492's talk page.
Message added 11:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback 2

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Danjel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

+1 more -danjel (talk to me) 13:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

+1 -danjel (talk to me) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Law & Order: UK episodes

Please go to Talk:List of Law & Order: UK episodes to discuss recent edits. Thanks. 142 and 99 (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am starting to get really angry on how Tama Fan is doing with the List of My Little Pony Characters. Please talk the sense out of her, I am wasting my breath against her rule-breaking. >:CBlackgaia02 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Mad Brony is Mad

I am starting to get really angry on how Tama Fan is doing with the List of My Little Pony characters. Please talk the sense out of her, I am wasting my breath against her rule-breaking. >:CBlackgaia02 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

She is still doing it.... And even worse than before.Blackgaia02 (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

For the Barnstar, its nice to know you enjoy my work. PS, I think you need to update your signature to remove redirect to your talk page. :P — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

..Oh awkward...shall do it now. Thanks :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies

I had no intention of being disruptive and I'm sorry, if you look at the edits I just recently made to the pages you'll see that I was just trying to clean up some of the clutter. Like the averaging of the field goal percentages and whatnot on the Ricky Rubio page, it just seemed a bit unnecessary to me. Again my apologies, I'm just doing my best to try to make Wikipedia better, something I'm sure you understand. 68.44.116.199 (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Boxxy

You reverted Boxxy year of birth to 1993, she is 19, so the year should be 1992. What is your source? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku0moaeQyMw&list=UUhEBIphknlID39darBhsv1A&feature=plcp - video from her birthday, uploaded 1 day after. --Walley (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll revert my own edit, as per this source you have just provided. Thank You, and happy editing! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Eureka Skydeck

The edit "from top to bottom" was to clarify that its from the antenna spire down to the ground. This is because if the Eureka Skydeck actually had an antenna, it will be higher than the Q1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobski (talk • contribs) 05:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You could just say that the tower is the tallest building by its roof height, and that the Q1 is taller by architectural detail. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 05:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: My talk page

Hi, I noticed that made an edit to my talk page that you reverted about a minute later, which has left me a little confused. Is it safe to ignore them, since the second was a revert of the first? --Davejohnsan (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is safe to ignore - it's just me, the half-asleep editor, thought you hadn't replied to that editor, so I wanted to put in two cents, without realising you already did. My mistake :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 02:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So he does exist… --Davejohnsan (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

New cast members on Law & Order: SVU

Here is what I just posted to Template talk:Infobox television to make the consensus "official":

It's been an unofficial policy because of WP:CRYSTAL for some time not to add announced cast members to the infobox until they actually appear in the opening credits of an episode of the show. This has caused problems in the past--sometimes they end up simply being recurring and not listed in the opening credits (this happened once on CSI: Miami) and other times they quit after only a few episodes and so were listed as "Special Guest Star" (as happened last year on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit). Lately, though, I've been seeing problems with editors edit warring over this and insisting that merely being announced and filming an episode is sufficient to be listed in the starring portion of the infobox. As such, I propose the documentation for this infobox be edited for the "starring" guideline as follows:

"The show's star or stars. Separate multiple entries with line breaks in original credit order followed by order he/she joined the show (<br />). New cast members should not be listed here until they appear in the credits of at least one aired episode for current shows or one unaired episode for DVD and other releases."

You can wait one day to add the new cast members to the infobox. If they appear in the opening credits (which they probably will but cannot be guaranteed since we cannot see into the future), it's no longer a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Patience is a virtue, and, as you can see from what I left on the talk page of the template, it has been the case in the past that shows have announced new cast members but they have not appeared in the opening credits. Any discussion should be initiated by you since you're the one disagreeing with previous consensus. 74.130.135.208 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You reverted one of my edits.

for a stupid reason. I was removing blatant false information, which, if you'd done any research on the subject, would have become apparent to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.87.153 (talk • contribs) 3:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Blatant false information? That's interesting, tell that to the two reliable sources attached to the "Blatant false information", not me. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Locations of Victorian Shopping Centres

You removed my edits showing shopping centre locations where the location is not clear by the shopping centre's name. It might not matter to you but I think location is important. Many centre's names are clear about their location, and I believe it's helpful to the reader to state the other centres locations to put them in context. Please revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brionnach (talk • contribs) 11:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be helpful, but it's redundant, as it is already mentioned in their seperate articles. Should we mention their floor areas, date of opening, number of stores too? Definately not. This is a template not an article.

But I'm glad you took this up with me. Cheers -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No, but the detail of location is different. How does one know by looking at a name whether a shopping centre is located in Melbourne, Geelong, Mildura, or beyond the Black Stump. Most names give a clue to where they are. I still say it's relevant for a template because the information is given for some names, not for others. Floor space, date of opening, number of stores, etc, are not ever given in a centre's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brionnach (talk • contribs) 11:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts perhaps more detail - a table with various information - could be created for the category or other page. What are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brionnach (talk • contribs) 11:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bowl = Boccia

I understand this is an encyclopedia but references to words in a dictionary? Are you serious? I have never seen references to words in a dictionary. I'm glad someone else provided a reference but you could simply check the google translator. BTW ball in Italian is palla http://www.wordreference.com/enit/ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkljun (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Never seen references to word meanings? Well I can officially tell you, now you have. All content must be attributed with a source. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 15:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not meaning, it is translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkljun (talk • contribs) 00:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well meaning or translation, it has been cited by a reliable source. Problem solved. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 04:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion nomination for Divine Economics

I changed the deletion nom from speedy to PROD, because the article was about a theory, and not a firm as you had tagged. I couldn't find any speedy tag that fitted the article, so I went with PROD. I don't think db-inc is a suitable speedy tag, but if you can find some other way to get the article speedied, please do so :). Ratibgreat (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've used the db-multiple tag properly. The syntax goes: {{db-multiple|G1|A2}}, as in, you still need to specify specific grounds for a speedy. Else, it needs to be prodded. I don't think we can speedy this article, but let's see what the admins think! Cheers! Ratibgreat (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your message to me

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Xfire. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- MelbourneStar☆"

Please refrain from making libelous accusations against me without properly researching the topic, as you did on my User Page. Your comment appears to have been thoroughly unfounded. If you would like to experiment, I suggest taking a walk outside (there's more away from the computer) --Yours Truly

Next time, why dont you check out www.xfire.com before reverting my edit? The gaming IM service currently has 20,019,116 members (on the homepage, bottom left). I was fixing an obvious error yet as I am just an IP and not one who dedicated thousands of hours constructing a Wikipedia profile, you doubted me because of the quantity of my change, yet failed to check its quality. A side note: don't you think an article that long would be about a service with over 1000 members?

A simple apology (and reversal of your re-edit) would be fine.

Yours Truly Out— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.78.23 (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to consult me with this. My reply to you, is that you take a read of this: Help:Edit summary, and start using edit summaries, so others don't mistake a valid edit for vandalism. And for the record, I would treat you the same as any other editor here on Wikipedia. Thank you -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 04:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 12:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback - Davejohnsan

Hello. You have a new message at Davejohnsan's talk page. Message added 20:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC).

By the way, have you considered archiving your talk page? --Davejohnsan (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I most definately have, but I have no clue on how to do so! :D -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Check out Help:Archiving a talk page. The basic idea is that you place inactive discussions onto (a) subsection(s) of your talk page, organized however you like it. User talk:MelbourneStar/Archive 1 and User talk:MelbourneStar/Archive/2011/September are a couple examples of titles. --Davejohnsan (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert. :) Acalamari 09:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome! It really should be me thanking you though, for giving me those Rollback rights in the first place :) Thank you, and Happy edting! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

From me, too, MelbourneStar. I haven't suffered much user page vandalism in the past, but you had this bit cleaned up for me before I even discovered it. Happy editing, yourself! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, too :D -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Paranormal Witness

The information for episode 6 is incorrect. I put the correct information on the page which was obtained by both watching the episode and going to the official website. I was not experimenting as you implied and I do not appreciate that you stated that my edits were not constructive. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was supposed to be as accurate as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.63.183 (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You are under the correct impressions, but an editor like myself can and often will mistake a good faith edit with vandalism - all because there was no edit summary. I suggest you start using one, so this does not happen again. Thank you, and Happy editing. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 04:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

New Age

Can i ask what is wrong to uploading verified files that are currently on wikipedia??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.45.21.92 (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading Unsourced content is the problem. Please cite reliable sources when you add content to Wikipedia, or it will be reverted. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Fleet

The list of shops was not advertisement, but a true, valid piece of information. Wikipedia is a service of information, an my addition to the page was just that. I am not paid by anyone, I am just a resident of Fleet. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.248.217 (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, read: WP:COI, and also for example, you describe the shopping centre as a "good shopping centre". That's promotional language, not encyclopedic. Thank You. Also please use references to corroborate your edit, or it will have to be reverted. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have changed this for the simple reason is that the town is suffering badly during the recession we are going through and want to let people know that other people have to travel to various cities to aquire work.Please leave this as is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.116.69 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - opposed to a discussion board, or Facebook or Twitter etc. Therefore only encyclopedic information will be edited in. Other content - warnings; unsourced content; travel brochures; forums and all that jazz, will be reverted. This unsourced content that has WP:OR standing directly in its way, destroys the integrity of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not vandalise pages on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:91.85.210.208, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC).

^Vandalism, and yes you have been warned. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 03:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters#Police

This may seem a bit anal retentive, but is there a specific reason you placed "Present" in italics? On the tables, I can understand its use, but on the character descriptions section, it seems kinda...awkward to me, and I'm tempted to remove it. However, if there's a reason for it, I don't mind leaving it be. --Davejohnsan (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well if it's used for the recurring character section, what would the point be removing the italics from the character summaries, but then keeping them at the recurring character section? Really, it shouldn't be just one section in italics, the other no italics. If one is in italics, so should the other. That's my view on it, but if you would like to remove italics from the character summary section, by all means, I won't stand in the way :D -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 03:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. Never mind! --Davejohnsan (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Jefferson Hills?

By your name you appear to live in Australia. You don't even drive in Jefferson Hills or have ever been in it. You don't know what a police state looks like.

Do you know this Wikipedia Policy -> Wikipedia:Vandalism? I suggest you read up on it before you make another edit. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Truth is not vandalism but I will locate a reliable source of information such as statistics on the amount of revenue they generate though pull overs or the amount of traffic court trials they hold and re-edit then in comparison to verify it in relation to another local borough.

But innapropriate non-encyclopedic language is vandalism. So if you are to find a reliable reference to corroborate your edit, please make sure you abide by Wikipedia policies, and set your edit out in an encyclopedic way (unlike before) otherwise it will be Reverted. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Why I have made changes on Geoffrey Munn's page

Hi there,

Just to explain why I have twice undone the most recent edit to Geoffrey Munn's page:

I am married to Geoffrey and believe that the previous version is far more accurate as well as being better written! I would not describe him as a business man and do not understand why some biographical detail such as where he went to school as been dropped.

Caroline Munn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.120.43 (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, Mrs. Munn, you are actually not allowed to edit this particular article, as it contrivines with a Wikipedia policy, known as Conflict of Interest. I'll be happy to assist you on editing other articles - not relating to the article on your husband, but other than that there is nothing that can be done here, other than follow sources. Regards -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sayuki is currently taking classes

No article posted on Sayuki's site uses the word disaffiliated. The Geisha Assocation refused to comment. The English article says Sayuki is no longer affiliated. The Japanese article says that Sayuki asked to have her own geisha house but was denied permission. One of the recent edits changed the wording to say that Sayuki is no longer affiliated which is exactly what the article said. Why did you need to change that back again and what reason could you have for doing so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.1.53.229 (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

From the talk page, and I quote, "The Japanese Sponichi article also used as a reference source for the statement that she was disaffiliated in February says "除籍された", which can be translated as "be expelled" or "delisted". In this radio interview, Graham herself states that she is no longer affiliated with the Asakusa district. "Disaffiliated" sounds the most accurate way to describe the situation to me, and I think that changing it to simply say "she left" adds unnecessary vagueness." If there are any issues, the talk page would be a general first-off place to go, and see if the issue has already been covered. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

KPDO and Daniel Roberts

MelbourneStar, you are reverting updated information which corrects false claims made on these two pages. If there is information that needs to be re-written or added, please add in addition to the new content instead of removing it and leaving these pages incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.48.103 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, according to WP:OR you are not alowed to update information without providing reliable sources. If you continue to add in unsourced information, and also removing the reference, that counts as Vandalism - and I just can't help but revert. Please start adding in sources. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The update about the KPDO website has been added as this is the only online reference available — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.48.103 (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverted - again. You haven't provided a source. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Shelter release

Wikipedia: The movie is straight-to-video in the U.S. possibly in 2011. [7]

Boxofficemojo: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2011&wknd=08&p=.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.240.53.201 (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, could you please explain that in your edit summary next time? Thank you. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Logical reasoning

Hi, someone named User:JuventiniFan has put time and effort to create List of video games published by 2K Sports and Category:2K Sports games, and his reasoning is logical: all games published by 2K Sports are in List of video games published by 2K Sports article,so there is no need to repeat them.this lists contains games that were released before foundation of 2K Sports in January 2005 by Sega which is wrong. and then you ruin all these work by reverting my edit. Ask yourself who is right: User:JuventiniFan or User:68.36.80.14? 78.158.168.89 (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Myself, actually. You didn't supply a crucial part to your edit, known as an edit summary. And you also removed references in the article. Please next time use an edit summary, so this issue doesn't pop up again. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU

This has become simply infuriating! MY CORRECTIONS ARE VALID. IT IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS FOR YOU TO NOT ALLOW THE CHANGES TO REMAIN. Some Australian conspiring between you and the original person who did this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ðœð (talk • contribs) 06:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath, read WP:AGF, and stay cool. Now, I reverted your edit, as I explained on your discussion page, because your edit removed references - and your edit summary did not validate your reason for doing so. I do not conspire with other editors, your edit came up on WP:Recent Changes. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not realise that I deleted the references. It was the incorrect name spellings which I objected to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ðœð (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, you aren't the first to realise that references have been removed in the edit :D Its best, before you are to remove the information, and replace it with the correct, that you consult the community about this, on the article's talk page, so we're all on the same page. Also, please make sure your edit abides by WP:OR and WP:V - using sources, or it is still able to be removed under those two policies. Thank you -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my anger yesterday, I have a temper problem in general. 02:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Ðœð (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted - not to worry, Wikipedia and some of its editors can make me angry too, although I don't show it :D I apologise if I was a little too upfront. If there are any issues, questions - you need assistance with something, I'll be here :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Collateral damage

Your deletion in Collateral Damage is biased and prejudiced. Is the Wikipedia supposed to protect the US / NATO blind killings of Muslims? Thousands of references can be quoted to prove such form of so called Collateral Damage. --119.158.49.172 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You say thousands of references can be provided? How about provide 1 or 2 - reliable - references in the article. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I need not to provide even HALF. You (probably American or Americanised Indian) have your monopoly on en-wiki. KEEP IT UP.--119.158.49.172 (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Australian. Keep up not Assuming good faith and I'll report you. Thank you. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Australians, what we know, are a different great nation as compared with Americans and the Americanised West. So please advise your great nation to go back to their historical role of an unallied nation free of American influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.158.49.172 (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you drop the American insults, and either add references, as you said you would, or simply leave the article as it is. Speaking about other people's countries, my country etc. in that kind of manner is really just rude, and I won't tolerate it, especially on my talk page, when we are speaking about something totally irrelivant. If there is anything else, please say now, or I assume this discussion is over. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

tv9 telugu

Hi,

Present details on tv9 telugu page is not correct. If I want to correct it its not allowing please provide me the permission— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshyt (talk • contribs)

Hello, unfortunately, I can see that you have been engaging in vandalism on this particular article - now, vandalism asside, could you please provide references in your edit? That would help the article a lot :D If there are any further problems, I'm just here. You have not been blocked from editing, so you are still free to do so. Thanks -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Collateral damage

I have tried to end the discussion between you and another IP in a fair way by providing about nine references. Hundreds others can be traced by googling on Google. Hope this actually ends the discussion without any harsh words. Thanks and regards. --182.177.153.134 (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It won't end in harsh words, but words of thanks. Thank you very much! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

ACA JOE

Please stop reverting the ACA JOE page to the old information - that is outdated and incorrect.

Please take a read of these few policies, before editing: WP:OR and WP:COI. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 01:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I/O (album)

Please stop reverting my edits on this article, as you have done three times now. My edit summaries make it clear what I am doing, and your repeated reverts are constituting vandalism. 88.104.18.186 (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you keep reverting sources - and last time I checked, that's vandalism. It's not Chrystal. The person has stated interest in something. Keep reverting, I shall report you for doing so. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 01:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced, does not mean it belongs in the article. And you have now reverted four time which is in breach of 3RR so it will be you who is being reported. 88.104.18.186 (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, go ahead. 3RR does not apply to when reverting vandalism. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 01:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Report logged. [4]. 88.104.18.186 (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, MelbourneStar. I've semi-protected the page for three days in order to stop the edit war and force discussion on the matter. The edits you were reverting were clearly not vandalism, and I would ask you to use your rollback tool a bit more carefully. Remember, it's for clear and indisputable vandalism only, and although the edits were tagged with "references removed", the user attempted to explain why they were removing (a small bit of) sourced content. I've told the IP user to bring up the issue on the talk page, and if you disagree with the edit, I would strongly encourage you to discuss the issue with them. Keep up the great work you do here overall. Thanks, Swarm ^X 02:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The edits may well be questionable, debatable, or even disruptive, but they weren't vandalism. The best course of action in this case would have been to undo the edits with a summary and to have adhered to 3RR. To be clear, my purpose isn't to lecture you; I just want you to keep this in mind so that you'll steer totally clear of any block-happy admins in the future. :) But anyway, thanks for the congrats! :D Best regards, Swarm ^X 03:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) (Feel free to rip this :P) Alright, sounds good, and thanks. Swarm ^X 03:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

how dare you!!!!!!!!!

ok im using this guys question treat to comunicate with you. (cuz i can't start a new discussion)(it seems only SOME people have the right. what6 is that censorship, you're only permitting people ,who thinks like the society want us to think, comunicate with you?ù0 why did you suppress my input with abraham lincoln. it was true. but oh let me guess, you just think what everybody else think about who was abraham lincoln. ok, im in a religion that has invented a device capable of seeing the past and i have seen the true history, i have seen the illuminati, the childhood of abraham lincoln, the lizard man, the real ancester of man(a race of alien known as the covenant). in order to achieve this i had to breath some plant the priest gave me. theseplant gives a lot of things. you should go to my church if you dont trust me. It's the siberan church. im a siberan.

and i think that the siberan who knows the truth have the right to express there view on wikipedia. Wikipedia is an public encyclopedie who is made by the input of everybody, every religion, every culture. especially the siberan who knows the truth. and do you know how many satellite controls our brains. no! i know. there's 3051 of them. i knew it and you didn't knew it. so that's the proof i'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.140.53 (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:Vandalism, then WP:block. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 01:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

why are you refering me to that. you know that i dont agree that my input was vandalism. you just know youre wrong and youre afraid of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.140.53 (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the truth is, is that if you continue to vandalise articles, for example: Federal government of the United States - adding this "government are trying to create a new world but order. they rule the americans with computer that controls some part of the brain. this can be often see as dangerous. this can lead to a changement in the way of life. American become computer. " You may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum or a place where editors are allowed to add conspiracy theories etc etc especially without Sources. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 01:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ok i wil just sop trolling

That'll be great. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 01:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Aquatic therapy

Sorry about turning aquatic therapy into a redirect to hydrotherapy without explaining myself. It really should be, since they're two words for the same thing, and the current article at aquatic therapy is highly disorganized and poorly written, and according to Google has a lot of text copy-pasted from other sources. If you think there's anything worth salvaging there that isn't already explained at hydrotherapy, you can go ahead and add it to that page. But aquatic therapy should be a redirect. I'm not going to bother trying to figure out which parts if any are actually original, reword them into something more readable, and incorporate them into hydrotherapy. 24.58.237.196 (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for realising your mistake, no need to apologise :D Would it be possible if next time you discuss this with fellow editors on the articles Talk page? Just so no issues, such as the one prior, arises. Thank you, and Happy editing! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 02:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Farley

Thanks for that. I suppose it was unexplained; I just wasn’t sure if perhaps there was an obvious reason behind the redirect … I left a note on the user’s talkpage. Metricopolus (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on that user's talk page too, just realised haha :) I'll merge my comment into yours so there isn't a duplicate section. Thanks :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 03:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

On the Jersey_Shore_(TV_series) page, under the starring section, Paul "Pauly D" DelVecchio has his alias in "'s, so why should the rest of the cast not have their alias' in the starring list. I was trying to make it more consistent by making a small edit to the wording. But it then disabled the link to Jennifer Farley's wiki page so I implemented the redirect. However, if you see that as harmful for some reason, so be it. Jimmybobbyson (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You did not tell anyone else what you were doing. If you did you may have gotten the green light to proceed with the change or the red light, saying either wait, or not happening. So yes, although in good-faith I assume, it was "harmful" as you say. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 03:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Adoption school

It's back alive :D I've updated the copyright lesson since you last were on the course, so I've put the new one up. Have a read through, let me know when you're ready for the test Worm^TT · (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Per this message, your test is up. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! already digging into it :D -- MST☆R ^{(Happy Halloween!)} 10:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

READ

WEll, i find it quite funny how you guys dont edit or find other mistakes BUT ALWAYS ME, You arnt nothing special and even if i had a serious edit you would change it and send me another warning message! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.24.130 (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of your edits, especially your recent one, constitue to vandalism - I think that's why you may be getting warnings. Apologies, if you feel that way about me or other editors. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 01:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Letty

if you knew Letty, you'd understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.65.118 (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please know this Wikipedia policy: WP:COI. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Czech Republic

Sure it does not point there if have deleted everything there as well:-)) I cant understand people what are doing this like you, it was there for years, when i dont know something or not sure i never dont delete it, but trying to find source, if you think like this then you must delete 90% of wiki:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirka.h23 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so you must be that editor who loves to add unsourced content to Wikipedia - all in good faith offcourse, but all it's doing is damiging the integrity of the encyclopedia :) -- MST☆R ^{(Happy Halloween!)} 07:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont put unsourced content, but content that is already in another articles so you can read everything there, and still dont understand why dont you firstly search before delete everything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirka.h23 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the content from that article you provided, because again, that didn't have sources either. -- MST☆R ^{(Happy Halloween!)} 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning The Prisoner

No one bothered to 'talk' when they removed an easily confirmable reliable source. Please check the source then undo your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.131.72 (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't do that, if there is no book. Is there an internet source perhaps? -- MST☆R ^{(Happy Halloween!)} 10:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The book can be found at Amazon. It is the same book that the claims that are made for George Markstein (citing #10) came from, only to have Rogers state he had doubts about them.Please undo your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.131.72 (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I see there is no comment so far. I will wait 24 hours then undo the edit as the RS is properly cited and posted in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.131.72 (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I just left a note on your talk page. Please provide the specific page number, and at a minimum a clear quotation that verifies that claim (on the article talk page). Continuing to revert is edit warring, and is not the right way to go about making changes. I'm concerned about this change because it so radically alters the meaning of the text that I'm uncomfortable having it there without some verification that its in the source and being interpreted correctly. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. It is way to early to make accustations of 'edit warring' when a good faith edit from a reliable source has been added to the article. It is reasonable to ask for further verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.131.72 (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)