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.

		The Userpage Shield
		For prompt reversion of vandalism to my userpage! RA0808 talk contribs 14:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome! — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 15:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi.analyst ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, please refer to the History of Gujarat.

/info/en/?search=History_of_Gujarat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi.analyst ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice those edits are coming from several different IP addresses, but all within the same (rather large) range from Telstra. Telstra does this, annoyingly, and it makes it much harder to communicate with non-registered editors. (I'm a strong fan of forcing people to register before they can edit articles.) Just as you assumed, I agree the changes are almost certainly from the same person, but he/she clearly isn't paying attention to Edit summaries. I'd be happy to just treat repeats as vandalism. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you. Their constant edit warring, switching IPs and avoiding discussion (like a PM that's avoiding the media... ) is actually becoming increasingly frustrating and tedious. If they persist, I would gladly create or take part in a discussion in regards to their disruptive editing, at ANI. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 07:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to deal with, even via ANI. It's not good to block an entire large Telstra IP address range. That could hurt some nice, beginner IP's. I find that very rapid reverts tend to put off all but the thickest, most obsessed nutters. (BTW, I've just reverted a similar edit at Australian Labor Party.) HiLo48 ( talk) 07:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean. Perhaps we should resort to reporting them individually to AIV, for disruptive editing? if they continue to ignore requests to engage in discussion the issue at hand, and continue to edit war (without even explaining their edits) - adding content that is questionable and unsourced – that's nothing but absolutely disruptive and counter productive. Their edits are also questionable = Exhibit A: Thatcherism? Howardism? - either factual errors, original research or someone's pulling one's leg. (I too had an encounter - after yours - on the Australian Labor Party article) — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 07:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

sorry, i did it by mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampad boby ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The biography of Dr. Lazar Mathew (posted on Wikipedia) was an unauthorized version, and hence has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.180.70 ( talk) 09:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't remove content. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 11:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

[1]- ??!!! Thanks! Ghmyrtle ( talk) 13:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted vandalism by a user with IP 92.43.71.68 and out of curiosity checked his list of "contributions" to the site. Each and every single edit of his for more than a year now has consisted of vandalism to different pages (and it's the same guy obviously, because no-one in their right mind can claim that every user with the same dynamic IP has nothing better to do than vandalise Wikipedia). What's funny is that I see on his talk page that he has received multiple so-called "last warnings" from so many people, including from you earlier this year. Not only that, he had even attempted to vandalise his own talk page in a pathetic attempt to hide his activities. What is the point of these ridiculous warnings when the culprit goes scot free and merrily continues doing what he does best - destroying this wonderful resource and undoing others' hard work? I request you to either ban this immature idiot forthwith if you have the ability to do so, or else forward this complaint to a moderator who can do the needful. In fact, I honestly feel such creeps shouldn't even have read-only access to the site; failure to respect a shared resource should result in an immediate and complete ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.131.179 ( talk) 21:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not actually a dynamic IP, it's a static one. It's a school in Leicestershire in the UK. So, some of the edits made from the IP are obviously made by the same person (or perhaps the same class if they are all being forced to learn about the same topic at the same time!), for example the series of edits on 20 February about contraception, on 18 April about native Americans, and on 8 October about Virgin Media and the Reading and Leeds festivals. However, given that it's a school, there is no likelihood that otherwise unrelated edits are in fact being made by the same person.

A "last warning" is generally intended to apply to the same person. Thus it "expires" if it's more than a week or so old, or even less for a school IP.

School IPs are usually responsible for a higher proportion of vandalism edits than other IPs. There is provision (and common practice) for blocking school IPs if the disruption from a particular one is consistently serious - whether it's the same person or not. This particular one, however, doesn't look to fit that category at the moment. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MelbourneStar? This is Dk113040 here. Listen, you want to might edit and update the "List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters section article, regarding the actor Richard Belzer's character John Munch on the TV show, that he departed the cast in season 15. And then, move his character's name into the "Former" table section, is that okay? Please get back to me as soon as possible, thank you.

Dk113040 aka John Perez 10/17/2013

Hi John, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Munch will be recurring throughout the rest of the season, like Melinda Warner - so therefore he will be a "current" character, of course till the season ends. Apologies for this belated reply, too. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 22:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 15), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hector Salazar and Billy Porter ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You removed something I added to the article on Michael Buckley. Your justification for the removal was: "all content, esp. "critism" must have reliable sources".

What I added was true. I have added it again for various reasons.
A/ I said that Buckley receives a "fair deal of negative commentary by YouTube users". I didn't say that every user criticises him.
B/ The first few words of what I wrote: "Despite having many genuine fans"… I added this to balance what I was adding to the article.
C/ After the colon in the following sentence are some caveats. "Buckley receives a fair deal of negative commentary by YouTube users on the videos he posts: this is perhaps partly because his video descriptions are somewhat misleading" - the caveats are "perhaps" & "somewhat". I am saying that the video stills are not entirely misleading, but somewhat misleading. So I am balancing what I wrote.

To your justification for the removal: You say that "critism (sic) must have reliable sources". Respectfully, this is absurd. All anybody has to do is read the comments on his videos. Or look at the still pictures he uses to represent his videos. The main picture he uses in the videos is not him. Why do you think this is? Why would he not use a picture of himself? Arguably he gets viewers by people clicking the link thinking they are going to see the video that is described. But instead they get him, talking about the event that is described. All you have to do is look at his videos to see this is true. His videos themselves are the reliable source.
And in regard to the myriad negative comments, underneath his videos, the comments themselves are the reliable source. All anybody has to do is read the video comments - then one can see that the paragraph I added (and therefore the whole article) is accurate. Unless you feel that Buckley is beyond criticism? Without the addition of my paragraph, the article is less accurate.
My sources are Buckley's videos. Please so not remove the paragraph again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.144.43 ( talk) 23:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You've nit-picked itty-bitty details from comments of a video, to corroborate negative content. A big no-no. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 22:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The "negative content" you talk of is nonetheless true. Unfortunately now the article is less valid. This inaccuracy is, to quote you, "a big no-no". Note that the user "Keithbob" also removed the section I added, but was constructive, and not bad-mannered about it. You can see a discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.157.144.43 "Nit-picking"? You are simply wrong. Thousands of users comment on the fact they feel slightly cheated when they arrive at Buckley's uploads, as essentially they are not getting what they clicked. If you are happy for this to be omitted from the article, you are inadvertently contributing to the impression that some have: that Wikipedia is increasingly being used as a promotional instrument, and this is often unchallenged.

Thanks again… 86.143.84.199 ( talk) 20:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand, and I’ll be happy to explain. The content you collated together, is original research and worse – not verified by multiple reliable sources – ie. You’ve just gone and found negative comments about a living person, made by people like you or I, and have added it to an article in hope that it’s balanced. I understand what you are trying to do. That’s great. But you need to do the leg-work – find reliable sources that corroborate this criticism; otherwise that puts you in direct violation of our policies on biographies of living people and adding in improperly cited contentious content.

Furthermore, it’s abhorrent to me, that you believe that I have been in anyway discourteous to you. I’ve been far from that, and have gone out of my way, to save you from making the same error of judgment a subsequent time. Violations of our BLP policy are always serious, and require a ‘tough-love’ approach… I’ll leave the mollycoddling to other users. Kind regards, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 00:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I was already aware of everything you have said about original research. However, the only way to corroborate what I added to article is to read the comments on his videos. I had an understanding that YouTube video articles on Wikipedia were slightly different due to their ephemeral nature. I have no real care either way about this Buckley guy, but I have clicked one of his videos - and then instantly groaned when I have found that the event I expected to see was not in the video. On the contrary, the video was actually him talking about the event.

I have then scrolled down - and noticed that a very massive majority of viewers have commented on this deception. Essentially, they felt the same way as me.

That's it. Simple as that. After this vaguely annoying feeling (and seeing that he had thousands of "hits" - perhaps partly due to this "deception"), I typed his name in Google, and found the Wikipedia article - which read like a glowing hagiography.

The fact that it's almost impossible to find "original research" to back this "video deception" issue is neither here nor there: all anybody has to do is watch the videos, and read the comments.

The text I am typing is black. I have neither the time nor the inclination to show original research to back this up, but it is black. Some things are simply perceptible. I feel there should be a natural unwritten exception to the "original research" rule when it comes to YouTube videos and their transient content. Surely there must be occasions where it is not possible to find original research, but the story still need to be told? I can't be the first to find this rule frustrating, particularly when many are merely trying to improve Wikipedia. Incidentally, this Buckley figure is not the only YouTube "channel guy" that does this bait-and-switch video technique...

Another problem is that you say I, "found negative comments about a living person, made by people like you or I". You're right (they were very easy to find - scroll down underneath his videos!). The issue here is that this is the world Buckley lives in. In a sense, his career lives or dies by comments the public make. That is his milieu. As comments and "hits" are the thing he chooses to be judged by, surely the Wikipedia article should approach and address this? Do you see how YouTube "celebrities" should arguably be treated in a different way? Their videos are the source of information...

Still, it's really not possible to verify the fact that there are thousands of negative comments on his videos, save to actually read every comment!. What I wrote included caveats, and was perfectly reasonable. I'd never join Wikipedia as I've noticed that a large proportion of the users here don't seem to like strangers. I am, however, not referring to you in any negative way. And I never asked for mollycoddling (!), however, in my opinion, suggesting I was "nit-picking itty-bitty details" was (arguably) discourteous. Unless that's your version of being polite.

Nonetheless, I thank you for taking the time to write. 86.143.84.199 ( talk) 00:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Doh! For "original research" above, read "verifiable, reliable source" - as I called it earlier. I understand that reliable and verifiable information is what Wikipedia wants, and not "original research". My (long-winded) point was that in terms of modern phenomena like YouTube, sometimes this is impossible to produce. Thanks! 86.143.84.199 ( talk) 04:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Why you reverting the changes, I am removing all the content which were tagged as promotional, i also edited the text so that it fits the norms of any page.

Please remove the tag for speedy deletion, I created another page "HAS Tech Solutions" because my previous page was having a title with 's' in lower case. I also want the old page "HAS Tech solutions" deleted as I would like to keep only one page i.e. "HAS Tech Solutions" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiteshfeb ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I recently read in the book that Hazel is still a virgin. I tried edditing it into the wikipedia page but you undid it. I would like you to confirm this information so that everybody will be able to see it and it will be posted on the Cannery row page again. "But in fact, Hazel was still a virgin" - Cannery Row page 58.

Yours Faithfully, Sieger Veldhuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.243.122 ( talk) 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MelbourneStar. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

BitBus ( talk) 06:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to the process of reporting 67.217.10.242. Sorry he's vandalizing your talk. - BitBus ( talk) 06:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

All water off a ducks back! — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if the English Wikipedia uses British English or American English? -- TheCommanderOf ( talk) 05:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey TheCommanderOf!,

Usually, it would depend on whether the article has strong ties towards Britain vs America. An article on the Queen would use British English, whereas an article on the President of the US would use American English. This goes into further detail, and will help clarify things for you. Regards, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 05:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just want to point that this page was blanked by only author (and second time, btw). Looks like this user needs to find the sandbox… Skarebo ( talk) 12:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I contributed as usual and saved the page. My contribution - AND ONLY my contribution, failed to save. I then went to the talk page, and found just the note that the last contribution was on 7 Dec. I assumed some editor bot had taken exception to the point I made. I did nothing else relevant, though for this page I did have difficulty logging in - I was informed, after logging in on another page following notification of a message, that I was, in fact logged in already.. You may have more experience than I, but a glitch may be in operation. I hope it's possible to recover the page, but frankly if it isn't I think incidents of this kind might prompt wikipedia to realise how unnecessarily Byzantine its procedures are. Since I can't see any way to restore it, perhaps you may be able to put things right.

best wishes Delahays Delahays ( talk) 10:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been restored, and not to worry mistakes do happen time to time! Welcome to Wikipedia — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 10:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar, I read all your instructions, thank you for your giving me such an important notice. I understood, it is a mistake to vandalize pages as i last did. Please do not take this serious as it would not be repeated never again. I am a novice in editing wikis, and would be glad to follow all your instructions and guides. Thanks so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustamens ( talk • contribs)

Don't you worry, it's all water off a ducks back. If you ever do need assistance with anything, please feel free to ask. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 03:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you from a land down under? Perhaps you can shed some light on this? Should I use different sourcing tools for the antipodes? I find no support for any of it. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 09:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can say that I am from the land down under haha and yes, you are right on the money! It's a hoax at its purest. Best, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 09:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dloh cierekim 10:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

There is a page on here for "school of meditation" which redirects to the "The School of Economic Science" page.

This is not correct and I was hoping that this can be removed?

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.222.101 ( talk) 12:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Morning melbourne star , I a RABARI myself. I am so cross with people who keep changing thiis webpage and the important information on it. My user name is camel baba. And I have been trying to put back all the information that was wiped of by the user Sitush as recent as 18th. Dec 13. He has wiped off all the important historical data / information that was there since 10th Dec 13, etymology, origins of rabaris , their clan names. Please check last page edited by Bambara Vipul.

Contents [hide] 1 Etymology 2 Caste and faith 3 Part of a large family 4 Religion 5 Rabari culture 6 Lifestyle 7 Rabari sub-castes (Shakh) 8 Community hostels and educational institutions 9 Rabari NGO and charitable trusts 10 Problems of Rabari community 11 See also 12 References 13 External links

All these headings have been removed or changed drastically by Sitush. He should not have done this as under the above headings, there was lot of relevant information for all to read including us RABARI and our new generation. Please edit and put all back. The new version on webpage is condensed and lacks historical and cultural information. The information dated from 10th December 2013 is correct as above headings, please check old entries and rectify. I am not that good with editing information on wiki, please do for me. Thank you. I had no intention of vandalism or destroying important cultural information, but it all need to go back onto webpage under above headings again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camel baba ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I dunno what u talking about man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.227.191.43 ( talk) 00:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I just received a message from you saying you undid a supposed change of mine on the page "Henry Hook (VC)". I think this may have been sent to the wrong IP as I've never seen that page before or even heard of Henry Hook. Now I read the message again, I notice it was sent 12:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC) - any ideas why I'm just receiving this now? I'd rather not have a strike against my IP for some silly mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.187.2 ( talk)

Mediran ( t • c) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Mediran ( t • c) 08:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you want me to semi protect your talk page for a few hours? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind about them! thank you anyway! Hope you had a wonderful Christmas too! Best, — MelbourneStar☆ ^{Merry Xmas!} 10:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked one of the ranges frequented by this jerk for a couple of days (and I'm ready to block more if necessary), so hopefully a bit of post-Xmas peace will descend on your talk page. Favonian ( talk) 20:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

HAHA, thank you, both. I don't really mind, it just goes to show that whoever's hiding behind those IPs, obviously has a lot of time on their hands to be doing that stuff during Christmas! — MelbourneStar☆ ^{Merry Xmas!} 07:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to semi for a few hours if you like - it seems to be an ongoing issue, and as far as I can tell the range is big. - Bilby ( talk) 08:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Following the recent upsurge, I've blocked the other range as well. Favonian ( talk) 08:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello MelbourneStar: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you, kindly! All the very best to you too for 2014! — MelbourneStar☆ ^{Merry Xmas!} 13:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

thank you for you council. my source was from mere assumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daydreaming101 ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, but please next time use verifiable reliable sources when adding content to Wikipedia. Thanks, —— MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 10:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This IP 111.92.22.131 is not stopping and is vandalising multiple pages. I have reported him. If you are an admin, can you please block him as both I and you have reverted several edits of his? Thanks Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey AKS, I'm not an admin - but don't worry, as they've been reported I'm sure an admin will get to them soon. Either way, I'll be monitoring their edits. Best, —— MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 10:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. Some guys just don't get it; do they? Lol. :-) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries ... never a dull moment here! —— MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 10:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)