User talk:MelbourneStar/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You removed an edit I made on iresq page. There would be no possible way to provide a reliable source. The only source I have is my employment at this facility. No other documentation exist for this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotronics (talk • contribs) 02:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Neotronics: welcome to Wikipedia,

Unfortunately, you will not be able to reinstate such content. Wikipedia does not allow original research — content must be verifiable by published reliable sources (secondary sources are perfect!). Your thoughts, just like my thoughts: are not published reliable sources. I hope that explains things. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How would I make my previous content a reliable source due to the fact that the previous comment "In February 2009, iResQ announced that it was partnering with a local recycling facility that redistributes surplus electronics to nonprofit organizations. It will also have its cardboard and paper waste processed.[6] " with the provided note [6] was from 2009 and no official record that this action is present at this time to hold note [6] to an absolute fact. The wikipedia only states " that redistributes surplus electronics to nonprofit organizations. It will also have its cardboard and paper waste processed" and nothing providing to my previous content providing only about E-waste. This feels to me to be a conflict. I provided content about E-waste as I am a content creator due to me physically working there to an article from seven years ago that can not be established or proven to the current time frame. I would like to add that from what I have seen on wikipedia many of the content is suggestive to be others opinions. I just wanted to state a fact. So my question would be how to make my content a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotronics (talk • contribs) 04:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Neotronics: Should the preceding sentence be outdated – remove it, and explain in the edit summary why it's being removed.

Should you wish to add content – the source must be published, reliable, and verifiable; it cannot be a blog post, YouTube video, Facebook post etc.; it must be either from the company in the form of a primary source (ie. their website), or, in the form of a secondary source (a newspaper article/book etc.). Per policy, we simply cannot add material on Wikipedia that is based on original research and not on reliable published sources. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Yes my removal of the Orwell reference was a mistake, whilst I was adjusting new references. By restoring the text, however, the additions I made have been removed, and I'm not clear how to easily restore them without repeating the error. Jfhbilby (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Jfhbilby: welcome to Wikipedia!

Don't worry, mistakes do happen. I've restored the material that was accidentally removed, and I've also fixed a couple minor referencing errors.

If you need anything, please feel free to let me know, over here on my talk page. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi

you can check below reference for pinnaiyur can you help me on this?

• http://codepin.in/pinnaiyur-pin-code
• http://www.tantransco.gov.in/template_3.php?tempno=3&cid=0&subcid=93
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/collector-checks-samba-harvest/article4247628.ece
• http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/censusdata2k11.aspx
• http://www.census.tn.nic.in/pca2001.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westpinnai (talk • contribs)

Hi @Westpinnai:

I had to undo this edit because Pinnayur is a disambiguation page (a place which links to other Pinnaiyur articles) not an article. If you wish to create an article, please ensure that it does not duplicate an already existing subject – otherwise it will be merged. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

i have made few changes on "Gold Flake" article that have been removed, may i know the reason and what should i do and how to approve my content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokersforum (talk • contribs) 10:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Smokersforum: welcome to Wikipedia,

Your changes have been undone, because you had continuously added chunks of unsourced content (that is, content without verification of reliable sources). Wikipedia must strive for content that is verified by published sources, and must not rely on opinions or one's knowledge. So, should you add content to this article – or any other article for that matter – please ensure that you cite reliable sources. Adding an {{unreferenced|date=September 2016}} tag to the article, as you add the unsourced content – is not what we do here; the onus is on you to reference the content you add in.

Secondly, the material you add in must be written in a neutral point of view, as to avoid sounding like an advertisement.

Finally, please use edit summaries appropriately. That means, accurately describing your edits – what you may be adding in, removing etc. so that other editors can understand your changes.

Hope that helps, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help on this. Since this is a block evasion, the articles may need protection. If any admins are around. JNW (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh likewise! @JNW: now wasn't that a thrill? It almost felt as though it would never end... —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have seen similar attacks go on for longer periods, per 'Becky with the good hair.' Somebody in Malaysia won't be buying season tickets for awhile. JNW (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, at least they are consistent! I'll give them that. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me, and explaining the reason why my edit was removed.

I believe that you have made a mistake. The information that I provided is accurate. This dispute was not public information prior to my edited post, so I am not sure how to site my source (other than the mention of written communications between The Carolina Panthers and myself).

The previously published information is being disputed. By providing the information on this site, I am making the dispute public knowledge.

Can you return my edit to the page, and/or offer suggestions on how I can provide a source for something that is not yet public/published information?

98.94.26.160 (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @98.94.26.160: the content you and Author58 have been adding to the article in question, is purely original research. Wikipedia prohibits sources based on word-of-mouth, as we would be incapable of assessing the veracity of such sources. We only allow published reliable sources –books, media, news etc. Hence, the content you wish to add in, must be verified by reliable sources – otherwise it simply cannot be added.

Secondly, having had this conversation, it may be best if you read our conflict of interest (COI) policy, as it appears you have connections to the subject of this article. This brings us onto neutrality: content must be written in a neutral point of view; this ties in with COI editing, but also, if you are adding in controversial content it must be verified by more than one source, accounting for all perspectives. The content you wish to add in has an undue point of view.

I hope I've been able to explain things. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I am sorry for deleting something. I am from the Club Basket Swans Gmunden. The Club is not named anymore Allianz Swans Gmunden, it´s just Basket Swans Gmunden. Also the Logo is wrong. We got a sponsor request, to delete all things conecting Allianz with our club. Maybe you can help me to do this?! If you want I can also send you our new Logo.

With best regards!

Richard Poiger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.112.34.174 (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Richard / @91.112.34.174:

Thanks for letting me know. As I'm unfamiliar with the logo, its history and what not – I will have the editor who uploaded the initial logo contact you. Hope that suffices!

Kindly, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This is to inform you that charans are an ancient caste living in india for around two thousand years. So the references are mostly in local languages and in hindi. It is therefore not possible to cite all those references as they are in languages such as Dingal , Hindi, Rajasthani, Marwadi etc none of which is either understood by you or the wikipedia. You are supposed to trust these kind of edits done by locals which foreigners do not understand for obvious reasons. Unless the edit is done by an indian , it must not be trusted , as a foreigner will never be able to understand the local culture. Or unless he or she is an scholer like Janet Campfrost or other historians of certified credibility. Sitush and people like you make edits based on common sense which is not only wrong but also an unethical practice.If you wish to see the references in local languages I can cite the books etc. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.184.65 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@106.215.184.65: if you continue to add content not verified by reliable sources, despite warnings asking you to do so — you may lose your editing privileges. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 16:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, I misread what was written in the notice. I will not remove it until the amdins agree it is wikified and relevant. Regards --OKNO (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@OKNO: Yes, definitely wait for the process to play out, and if the subject is deemed verifiable and notable, it won't be deleted. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks :) Regards. --OKNO (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I've taken off the speedy tag for now. I've also restored the translation of fr:GuestToGuest that went missing when you reverted to restore the tag. When a tag removal is coupled with text addition, I usually just re-add it manually. Safer that way... There's quite a few references (which I've not checked yet), and the article in French has been up there for a bit, so AfD might be the best option - if it's thought not notable here. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a review of it in due course. Thanks @Peridon: for letting me know. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your fantastic job in editing2602:306:CDEF:6110:8DDA:86C1:8EA:2F96 (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I try to edit something from published info., but it won't let me. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDEF:6110:8DDA:86C1:8EA:2F96 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:CDEF:6110:8DDA:86C1:8EA:2F96: thank you very much, I appreciate that.

Please review our frequently asked questions on how to edit; It's exhaustive, but you will no doubt get the hang of it. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you, but what is your name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDEF:6110:8DDA:86C1:8EA:2F96 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You deleted an edit to her page. The edit was to indicate her death; she passed away this morning. There has not been a publicly available death notice, but she is definitely no longer alive. Please do not revert such changes. It is both inaccurate, and offensive.

If you would like a source, cite this. I knew her personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.200.238 (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@49.195.200.238: My condolences.

Unfortunately, I have had to re-undo your edit, as per Wikipedia policy. We are unable to rely on original research — we need verifiable published reliable sources. I mean no offence by this, but I'm sure there has been instances on Wikipedia where we have relied upon the words of people (rather than published sources) and have been quite wrong.

News regarding this subject will no doubt be made available in the coming hours, or days, and by that stage: we will be able to note her passing. Until then, Wikipedia is unable to reflect this sad event. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not the user who made the edits to the Beryl Crockford article, however I can confirm she died this morning. I understand the original research policy. I wanted to ask whether you reverted the edits regarding her death because you felt it was necessary to confirm something as sensitive as a death or purely because an unsourced statement was made and policy doesn't allow that?

If the former, it is verifiable online, although only in a Facebook page - not enough for a source but enough for you to be satisfied. https://www.facebook.com/HenleyWomensRegatta/posts/1083927694977219

If the latter, I would point out that it would not be the only unsourced detail in this article, let alone the hundreds of thousands of other biographical articles. Would it be possible to exert some leniency?

Either way, please be mindful that whoever made the post claims to have known Beryl personally and is making the edits on the day of her death. If you feel you need to enforce policy rigidly please try to be sensitive about it; at the moment your manner is (perhaps inadvertently) a bit brusque in the circumstances.

On another point - what if her death is never reported in a primary source? I expect it will be, but perhaps it won't. Does the article continue to refer to her as a living person ad infinitum? I guess there must be other similar cases, is there a policy?

Best regards,

--Mralph72 _Chat 12:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing as I missed the discussion above. I can see you are not being deliberately offensive. Bearing in mind you now have clear evidence (albeit not encyclopedic) that she died, and so can be sure there is no mistake being made, I wonder if you would be able to retain the detail in the article until a verifiable source can be cited?

Best regards.

--Mralph72 _Chat 12:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mralph72: Thank you for your concerns, I'll address them as best as I can.

I'll be taking this up with the relevant noticeboard, as I personally believe we ought to make note of this event; however, I'm bound by Wikipedia's policies – as are you. WP:BLP, which applies to recently deceased people too, is very direct; it requires that we add verifiable reliable sources to articles concerning BLPs; and to immediately remove any content that is unsourced (or poorly sourced) contentious and/or potentially libelous material, pursuant to WP:BLPREMOVE. I mean no disrespect – we just have a bit of red tape to get through, before we figure out what to do. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have alerted others at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Beryl_Crockford. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I made those edits to the page for Alcohol Justice because we need to get the word out that they are a neo-Prohibitionist organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B12A:3A1E:49D8:7CBD:CC03:526B (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@2600:1002:B12A:3A1E:49D8:7CBD:CC03:526B: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy organisation. Please do not add material such as this, because it is unconstructive and will be removed henceforth. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I intend to edit this article, as in 2011 I had edited and brought it in good shape. However, lateron, it was edited and its present form is not correct.

It talks about climbing the mountain, but again mainly on Malika Parbat North peak. Whilst, Malika Parbat main which is actually known as Malika Parbat speak nothing in the article. I think that you did the right thing, but still I believe that there is a need to rectify the article. I have written a detailed book on this mountain which has been published and present article is totally on contravention. Malika Parbat North was never climbed by the two different parties in the year 2012 however they managed to climb the Fore Summit, which should have been mentioned. Yet the guy namely Imran Junaidi who had edited it is no more who died in a mountaineering accident. So history need to be corrected giving them the credit of what they had actually climbed.

Regards,

Afzel Scherazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwppak (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Afzel/@Mwppak: welcome to Wikipedia.

The content you wish to add must be verified by published reliable sources; so, if you have such sources, provided that they are secondary and credible, please feel free to add said content. Also, please do not remove content that is well-sourced, and replace it with unreferenced content. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

My edits were all literally true, from my first hand experience going there. I didn't say anything that was untrue, and i think its important for people to know what TCS lacks in mental health support. How is that Vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.66.101 (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@72.137.66.101: Your edits are clearly unconstructive, lacking in neutrality, reliable sources. Please cease making such edits, or just take your advocacy elsewhere. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Melbourne Star! Thank you for being interested in the Alan Bern Wikipedia entry! I'm new to this so I may make some mistakes at the beginning. I understand why it's not appropriate to add links as a kind of self-promotion. My intention was to document that something really exists. I appreciate your guidance! Best, Alan Bern, September 14, Alanbern (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Alanbern: welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm sorry I had to undo your edits. We do have quite a number of policies that we must follow.

On a side note: please have a read our guideline on conflict of interest editing — that's not to suggest that you will be barred from editing your own article (although it's strongly discouraged -- we recommend you suggest edits on the article's talk page). It's to give you an understanding of how Wikipedia operates, and the organisation's expectations regarding such editing.

Hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, MelbourneStar! Is there a way for me to respond to your comments on my own talk page, or do I do that like this (on your talk page)? Alan Bern, September 14, 2016Alanbern (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Alanbern: whichever is more convenient for you. If you'd like me to talk to you on your talk page, feel free to let me know. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I understand now, thanks! So, here's a question. I linked to the Exploratorium Berlin, because it's one of the most important places in Europe for research, teaching and creative work on music improvisation. I also teach occasional workshops there, but my reason for linking to it on Wikipedia is just because I think it really deserves to be known and people might like to follow up the link. Am I thinking about this in the wrong way?Alanbern (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Alanbern: Yes and no. Let me explain further:

On Wikipedia, we create articles on the basis that the subject is notable.

If the Exploratorium Berlin is notable, then an article ought to be created – instead of an external link. If it's not notable, an article won't be created and hence: neither will an external link. Notability is determined on the grounds of: reliable sources which demonstrate notability; that is, sources like newspaper articles, books, other publications etc.

So, because the subject you mention has no article, it's notability is questionable. An external link is innapropriate – but, you would be able to mention the Exploratorium Berlin, provided you have cited a reliable source which establishes its notability, and hence: why it ought to be included in the article you're editing.

I will also note, the Exploratorium Berlin has a German Wikipedia article (Exploratorium Berlin); maybe you could use this as an example, should you wish to create an article on the English Wikipedia regarding the Exploratorium Berlin. Kindly, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I am the source as a former member — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:807:8001:66EC:B15E:4AA1:89E9:BFF0 (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@2601:807:8001:66EC:B15E:4AA1:89E9:BFF0: welcome to Wikipedia!

Unfortunately, you won't be able to add the content you wish to add, unless it is verified by reliable published sources (ie. books, newspaper articles, and so on). Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I made an important edit. Ken Buck is the devil himself and that needed to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.127.221 (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@146.151.127.221: Don't vandalise Wikipedia again – otherwise, you may lose your editing privileges. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello I recently added the citation from original source and edited Vrishali why are you deleting my edits ? Kyo to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyo to (talk • contribs) 10:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Kyo to:

I've undone your edits because they introduce unsourced content; that is, content that is not verified by a reliable source. I've reviewed your edits again, and I have found no citation to a reliable source whatsoever – so unforutnately, I'm unsure what it is you may be referring to. Finally, please use edit summaries appropriately: you didn't just "fix a typo" as your edit summary indicated. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I know it's not a very encyclopaedic page, but it's definitely not a hoax. They are real - I don't know any personally, but I've seen them, and a quick check on Google is revealing. I get the feeling that a prod would be a waste of time, but an AfD could be interesting... I have copyright doubts about the manga style cartoon illustration, and the others could be copyvios (but it wouldn't be easy proving it). Peridon (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Peridon: thanks for letting me know. My generation seems to be going though so many societal changes that it's hard to keep up with them, and figuring if something is true or a hoax. I had seen an entry on Urban Dictionary for the term, however, I thought it was made up nevertheless. I'll let the article be, and allow some better eyes than mine have a look and see how it can be improved – or deleted, through the avenues you suggested.

Again thank you!

Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope my comments did not make you think you did something wrong because you didn't. I don't see any reason that the AFD should be blanked. I just saw a different solution that hopefully diffused the situation without blocking or protecting anything. I believe the comment after my last comment was uncalled for. We should try to defuse the situation not make it worse. -- GB fan 13:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @GB fan: for the concern, I appreciate it. I just haven't been on top of my gain – and whilst I stand by my reverts and how I went about things, I can say, that there certainly is another way. The situation was lousy, the policies weren't clear to me (and to others, it appears, if going by the discussion at AN/I) – but perhaps I could have done my due diligence in reviewing the exceptions of removing content at a closed AfD. I've apologised to the editor in question, and I hope its resolved by tomorrow – by which time, I will have had some good rest. Thank you, again, for your explanation. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)