User talk:MelbourneStar: Difference between revisions

user • contribs • count • email • logs • page moves

This is MelbourneStar's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Welcome to my talk page! If you leave me a message, I will respond here and leave a {{Talkback}} or {{Whisperback}} notice on your page if you request one. If I left a message on your page, please respond there. I use my watchlist to keep track of responses, but feel free to post a message on my page with {{Talkback|your username}} to ensure that I see your response. If a conversation is deemed by me to be unconstructive, I reserve the right to archive said interaction. Click here to leave me a new message.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

FAPtv: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEyKu1JwbU4u_b5osaEIik_yyOFXyEnYH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.110.156.205 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you, just trying to get the hang of things. I appreciate your feedback.

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)[reply]

@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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Again, please be more specific; because what I said IS supported by references on BOTH the Low Fantasy article AND the High Fantasy article (although the Low Fantasy article confuses and contradicts itself and there are several problems on the High Fantasy article, e.g. the Examples section). Regardless of your answer, at this point I'm just going to write up revisions for each section on both the Low and High Fantasy articles where needed and I will provide additional sections in this write up that explain the corrections and note which citations to use. You've ignored every piece of evidence I've given you and everything I've referenced to you and everything I've explained to you so far - and you've deleted the otherwise nice starting point I initially gave Wikipedia for fixing the LF article - so once I post this you are free to deny it at your own peril of looking even more foolish, petty, and unworthy of your status as an Admin as you already do. And it does not go unnoticed that you also continue to be a complete and utter dick by claiming "we're past the insults" but then continuing on that everything I'm explaining to you is an 'opinion' when you know damn well it's fact, even going so far as to italicize your words (and again, you know it's fact because the articles themselves prove what I'm saying). Congratulations, you've been promoted from dick to asshole (it's not really a promotion).