User talk:MelbourneStar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Bus tables

Thanks, MelbourneStar1, for your offer. In order to find the articles I simply go to the template, then click on the link "What Links Here," and it gives me a list of all articles that have the bus templates. Here's the page, so you can see what it looks like:[1] Feel free to remove the rest, if you have time, as I won't have time for a few days. What might be more useful is to create a substitute link, such as a page that has all the bus routes and a link to the website. Then, future articles can list all the routes by number, link to the main article, and readers can click the transit site link to eventually find timetables and other information. --Kleopatra (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

PS

Add some information to your user page, even a blank edit, so your user name is not red-linked. That's a red-flag to editors that you're new and require extra scrutiny. While you probably will need some monitoring and help to get used to editing wikipedia, there are plenty of Melbourne editors who will help you out, and you can ask me or Erik any questions you have. --Kleopatra (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Kleopatra :) I'll start my userpage --will keep me occupied. I'll also try the 'more useful' option...i'll try get some help with that also. If i do the first option and just delete the transport section (timetable) should I tell the editor who first put the timetable there, that I will be removing it? or should I just mention it in the summary?? :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Mention it in the summary, but you can also tell the editor who created it. I will nominate it for deletion as soon as possible after they are all deleted, then post on the editor's page and wikiproject Melbourne. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your user page is fine. To use user boxes, copy the code of a couple from someone else's user page. What do you have in mind? --Kleopatra (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kleopatra...I would like to add things such as my Religion, Gender, Country, etc. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Heatherton: The Kingston Centre

Hi MelbourneStar1. Thanks for your note on my User page regarding your change to my Kingston Centre content on the Heatherton page. Very good of you to take the time to leave a note - most revisions are done without such courtesy! I've reviewed your changes, and will be reverting some of them, I'm afraid - a check of the Melways shows that the Kingston Centre is physically in the suburb of Heatherton, though (confusingly) it has a Cheltenham Street adress - I guess because the front gate is on Warrigal Rd, which marks the boundary between Heatherton and Cheltenham. The Kingston Heath Golf Club is definitely in Heatherton (Google Maps even gives Heatherton as their address), though amusingly they give themselves a Cheltenham address on their website (regardless of the fact that there is no Kingston Road in Cheltenham). Maybe this is because most Melburnians (let alone the rest of the world) have never heard of Heatherton... Your sandbelt revision is much less clear cut. I couldn't find an authoritiative definition of what consitutes "the sandbelt", though I did find both that the Kingston Heath and Capital courses are described (and the former self describes) as being "in the Melbourne Sandbelt" I've added references to all the above accordingly. Finally, Kingston Heath Reserve is indeed in Cheltenham - my bad.

I guess the underlying message for both of us is that all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable from (preferably multiple) sources - just like it says under the editing box. By definition, it must not contain "original research" - neither your nor my opinion has any validity. I didn't include references to support all of the information originally provided, but have now satisfied myself that the information given is accurate, and have referenced, where appropriate.

M1rtyn (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that your just helping the Heatherton article but those 3 places are not in Heatherton. 1. based on google, type in the place then cheltenham next to it....you will see there is more results than if u type Heatherton in 2. The Kingston City Council recognizes those three places in Cheltenham 3. all three site have their own webpages that clearly state there in Cheltenham.

Please don't revert, they are not in Heatherton. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

MelbourneStar1 - I currently live between the two locations in question - in Heatherton, postcode 3202. Regardless of what they say on their websites, they are physically in Heatherton. Probably the most authorative source for geospatial data in Victoria is [2]. Not the easiest site to use, but have a look and what you think. M1rtyn (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the Land.vic.gov.au, the location of the Kingston Centre is 400 Warrigal Road, Heatherton 3202. The location of (the clubhouse) of the Kingston Heath Golf Club is 66 Kingston Road, Heatherton, 3202. M1rtyn (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

MelbourneStar1: Looks like we're not getting to consensus fast here - I suggest we call for a Third Opinion - happy with that? M1rtyn (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Do I have a choice? I believe since we both live in the area, you in Heatherton, me in Cheltenham, I believe we can be more calmer about things, and not get too hasty. The centre/park/club are recognised by the City of Kingston on Cheltenham's land. Google even suggests that there in Chelt...as I am typing in their names it suggests to put Cheltenham next to the word. Now I will be gone for about literrely 10 hours...but i'll be back. Dont make tough descisions without me, cause i will revert, then we'll be on square one again. Thanks. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh and just quickly that site you showed me is great, the only proplem is that, the people who said those three places are in Cheltenham --work for the Council, not a page.

If for example, The Kingston Centre recognises itself in Chelt 3192, its in chelt. The Council agrees, Melway agrees (back of book), Yellow Pages etc. I have checked these. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Westfield Southland Reassessment

An analysis of Shopping Centes in Melbourne in the Melborne Project shows the majority of articles as Mid importance and in the Australia Project as Low importance. On the basis that there are approx 3,300 Melbourne articles and 94,000 Australia articles this seems reasonable. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean? Will it be re-assesed yes or no? MelbourneStar1 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This means that the importance of an article can vary depending under which WikiProject it is being assessed and the Importance Scale criteria. Talk:Westfield Southland has been assessed as Low on the Australia project and Mid on the Melbourne project. There is no reason to change the importance. The Class of the article (which can be varied by improving the article quality) is assessed as Start class, which I agree with. Consider the article as re-assessed with no change. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally, the importance of articles is about 1% = Top, 3% = High and 12% = Mid. This means that approx. 84% are assessed as Low or unassessed. See Statistics for the Global summary of articles. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can may you please answer me as to why both Westfield Doncaster and Westfield Fountain Gate carry a mid-importance on both Australia and Melbourne projects? It's in a way I think it's just plain ludacris to even think that those shopping centres are a little more important than this one. I'm appalled, not at you, but to everyone who knows the shopping centre like I do, and hasnt brought it up with the project. I'm not afraid to say this, but Southland is in fact slightly more important, as it's had a longer history than both of the centres, it's larger in size and in no. of shops, It's receiving a station in less than 3 years time, it has up to 16.5 million people entering it's doors annually, a premier shopping centre when built. I'm just shocked in disbelief. Thankyou MelbourneStar1 (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not about my shopping centre is bigger than yours. Articles are assessed by people. Peoples opinions vary, and change over time. If you disagree with an assessment, then change it. Quite frankly, whether an article is mid or low importance is not that important. To understand the use of the Importance tag I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team and sub-pages. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not important? coming from you, maybe. But everything now days has a reason.An important part to play. You saying weather things have a low or mid importance is not that important is irrelivant. If that were true, I am sure the projects would have taken mid and low, replacing it with something else. And yes, Cuddy Wiftler, it is about how big the place is or how old it is, how many customers it has anually, or it's annual turnover etc. It all matters. Thanks :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have tried on a number of occasions to explain this mattter, but it is fairly obvious from your comments that you have not bothered to read the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team page and other links I have sent to you, and do not understand the importance tag definition as it applies to Wikipedia articles. Good luck with your editing. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No Cuddy Wiftler, I dont think you understand that Southland has it's importance, in Melbourne as well as Australia. This centre is local to me. I know what it features, I know who runs it, I know how many stores, floors, carparks etc. it features, even without looking at Wikipedia. I know it's importance, because I read articles about it from newspapers, I ask the community about the centre and whats it's use to them, whenever I travel places throughout Australia I am proud to show people where I live and whats locally to me...a lot of people know this place. It has been around for over 40 years, it has flagship stores including Myer, Village Cinemas (16) David Jones etc. it has more than 16.5 million visitors annually (almost 4 times the population of New Zealand in comparison). One of Australia's most 'successful' shopping centres, a premier shopping centre when it opened, operated and owend by the world's largest shopping centre group, the Westfield Group. I don't 'think' it has imporatnce, but i 'know'. "Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area" I have shown it's mid importance by explaining these points below:

• large scale extensions.
• A proposed now approved railway station.
• The centre's size in floor area
• What it features (stores)
• How many visitors
• Who runs it
• It's history

etc.

It's at Mid-Importance as it should have originally been. Maybe if you would have tried to understand me a little better, I would of done the same. This issue is resolved. Good Luck Cuddy Wiftler on editing, you most definately need it. Thankyou MelbourneStar1 (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Heatherton Hospital

Hi, it would be good to give the original name, Heatheron Sanatorium as well. Just out of interest, Melway edition 1 shows how this are looked in 1966.Melburnian (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats Awesome :) Thankyou :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Bus Routes

I am very familiar with Wikipedia is not a directory policy and have used it in editing a number of times in the past. I have seen Wikipedia pages which resemble a directory. This is not a directory. This matter is about the deletion of a perfectly legitimate piece of information (ie.bus route in a suburb) with an external link, for dubious reasons. Kleopatra is wrong in the deleting of this information from over 150 articles. The matter should been discussed before he commenced his mass editing. There is no reason to do this without a consensus of users being reached. And you should not make any edits to articles while a discussion of the template is continuing to take place. Please see my further comments on the relevant template page. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sure Kleopatra had good reasons to delete the 'travel brochures' out of the articles. In other encyclopedia's it would be even ludacris to suggest a transport section. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Many Melbourne suburbs articles have a Transport section which gives details of trams, trains, buses and even bike tracks. Check out some of the more complete suburb articles Brunswick, Carlton, Port Melbourne, St Kilda and Frankston. It's got nothing to do with travel brochures, it's the normal practice on Melbourne suburb articles. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that Melbourne suburbs have details about public transport. That is completely fine. However putting Metlink Bus routes --which no one has checked it's copyright grounds, that is not okay. Those suburbs you have shown me show the correct version of what a transport section should look like. Adding bus routes or timetables to an article is just as ridiculous as adding a shopping catalogue to a supermarkert article. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian Law

Hi MelbourneStar, and welcome to Wikiproject Australian Law. There aren't many of us around, but I thought I would ask where you wanted to start. There's lots of things to do, from creating articles, expanding small ones. Not so much in the way of polishing existing ones.

So welcome. VeryRusty (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou very much VeryRusty for the welcoming :) Whenever I have some time I am willing to do some expanding, on some the Australian Law articles that require expansion. I'm interested in articles that are about courts court cases etc. Again Thankyou :) Glad to be in the team. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Spire

Your references do not cite any basis for their authors' stating that the project is canceled. "Canceled" has a very specific meaning - that the parties pursing the project have decided not to pursue it. A project can be dead or blocked without being canceled. There is no published source that I have been able to find that says that Shelbourne has canceled or abandoned the project.

Your two references both appear to be reporters drawing conclusions about the future of the project from its legal and financing problems. Neither article cites a source for their claim that the project is canceled. Understand that I do believe it is thoroughly blocked and very unlikely to proceed. However, there is nothing to indicate that Shelbourne is no longer pursuing it, so I don't think you can say it has been "canceled".

As to my needing a source, I did provide a source for the assertion that the site is in receivership and pending foreclosure (which pretty much matched what your references said, except for the reporters' description of the project as canceled). That is, to the best of my knowledge, the current state of the project. Neither of your references provides an authoritative basis (such as a quote from Shelbourne saying the project is dead or even evidence that the escrowed deposits of people who had contracted to buy apartments had been returned). Sepreece (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You do not need a statement from the developers to know that the project is closed. If they as an example, are currently in a major financial crisis, and they only have a hole in the ground, the building will not be built. you know it, I know it, and so will they too. I still dislike your reference, don't take it personal. I will be re-revertting again, you have provided meanliness sentences that don't cite that many references. Basically you have just substituted the word 'Cancelled' with 'dead', so ill change that back too, because if the developer dosent mention it being dead or cancelled, thats at the developers descretion. I'll refraise what I sead in my first comment -- "Get evidence, with a number of reasonable sources" Thankyou. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see - my reference is a hard-news story in a major metropolitan newspaper in the city where the project is located, one of yours is a personality piece, the other is in a minor source. But I don't mind that, it's just that they don't support what you claim they do - except for the reporter's statement of opinion, they match what my reference said. Appearing in print is not the same as being supportable as an encyclopedia reference. Yes, the project is blocked and probably dead, it just isn't canceled. You're simply wrong - only the people responsible for a project can cancel it. Your opinion of my text changes is bizarre. However, if you want to be responsible for the incorrect statement that the project has been canceled, on your head be it. I'll leave it for somebody else to eventually get it right, when the project actually IS canceled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepreece (talk • contribs) 00:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at the articles discussion page, I made it look better with a few more references :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I do, in fact, live a block from the Spire site. It's really sad that it is unlikely to be built (and certainly won't be built in the foreseeable future), because the likely alternative uses of the site are much less attractive. However, I never intended to 'keep the project alive'. My only problem was with the word "canceled", which the dictionary defines in a way that requires doesn't fit unless the parties responsible for the project cancel it. As I said previously, I'm not going to fight the issue and will leave the word alone. I'm making other language changes, but I believe they are all just textual changes to make the language better and clean up some grammar/punctuation issues.

Thanks for working to keep the articles up to date. Sepreece (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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.

-danjel (talk to me) 04:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

...and again. :) -danjel (talk to me) 05:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Acalamari 10:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Heritage?

1. I am of Greek and Italian heritage?

...sorry, it's hot here. :) -danjel (talk to me) 13:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha I changed it thanks! :) Geez its either the heat is getting to me...or im just half asleep :) Thanks again! MelbourneStar1 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello MelbourneStar1, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 11:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 11:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at ErikHaugen's talk page. Message added 17:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ErikHaugen

Would it be OK with you if I undid your last edit? I'm thinking we should let Fly by Night have the last word here. 28bytes (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey :) I undid the edit myself, To be real honest I shouldnt of said anything, it was out of line...but what is just so annoying is that she just cant understand that this editor is a great admin candidate. Some people these days... Anyway, thankyou for notifying me...where as other editors that don't have the common courtesy, would just remove it anyway. Thankyou! MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I figured that since you, Pedro and I all had our say on that oppose it would probably be best just to let it go. 28bytes (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

true :) also take a look at townlakes reply to her message... MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Let's hope for ErikHaugen's sake it doesn't spiral out into a big(ger) drama-fest. I've been through that and it ain't fun. 28bytes (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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.

-danjel (talk to me) 08:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding I have mentioned you in my post on Bidgee's conduct at ANI. Of course, you are not required to participate because the majority of the post concerns other actions by Bidgee.. The thread is User:Bidgee.The discussion is about the topic WP:NPA, WP:BITE, WP:USETEMP. Thank you. -danjel (talk to me) 13:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for informing me, if I am required at any stage, please feel free to ask -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Email

No worries, we got it sorted out :) Thanks for the email. Melburnian (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U User:Bidgee

Based on advice from User:Strange Passerby[3] I have raised a User RFC regarding User:Bidgee. I have copied your statement from the ANI. You should indicate at the RFC whether you endorse the statement, and if necessary, provide any additional information. The RFC is located at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bidgee.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you, but haven't I already endorsed the RFC, by providing my own statement?...sorry I am just a little confused here...

-- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a separate section in the User RFC for endorsement by involved editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, hate to be trouble or anything, but when you mean 'endorse', would you like me to say something like "I endorse this RCF"...? I am like half asleep lol :S -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oi. Go to WP:Requests_for_comment/Bidgee#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary, say "I endorse per my statement above" or some such, then sign. :) -danjel (talk to me) 13:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

re Nepean Hwy

You asked me about the tram along Nepean Hwy - I don't know where that tidbit came from. I don't believe it is one of mine. Feel free to remove it. Ewawer (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I suck at this! So Sorry!! Geez ummm if i ever run for adminship, know to oppose lol. Thanks -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the material again, and sure enough it was one of mine. But I can't remember the source. It goes back over 3 years. Ewawer (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, It is up to you, would you like me to keep it the way it is or remove it?

I'll first look for references backing it up before anythings decided. ( I personally hope it happens :) Thankyou :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Gateway Theatre of Shopping

Hi! In regard to Gateway Theatre of Shopping, you don't have a ref saying that it is the second biggest, but the source I have states that it is the largest in the southern hemisphere. I won't continue to edit war over it, but I was careful with the wording - it has, in a number of places, been described as the biggest, so I'm only wording it as a description, not as anything more. Given that the "largest" criteria seem to be fluid, such that more than one shopping center is described as the biggest, I think the wording in this sense is safest. - Bilby (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for atleast having the courtesy of telling me this, that is great :)

The centre is 180,000m2 as sources say, and Chadstone is 190,000...So what would the possibility be if a centre was between them 2 centres?

That section can be replaced with "one of the largest in the Southern Hemisphere", but I am actually saddened because just like Centro mall in Brazil, it is running low on sources.

Look for now try doing something like what I have mentioned above...or keep it the way it is, whatever suits you. It is 12:30 AM where I am right now, so i need to be asleep :))

Will most likely discuss more about this, tommorow, if you want :) Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted it to a compromise wording. Hopefully that's ok. - Bilby (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I must admit, I like that. Thanks -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding Diane Neal info. to List of Law & Order: SVU episodes

Thank you for asking and yes you may but could you use the TVLine address we used in the season 12 section? : http://www.tvline.com/2011/03/law-order-svu-scoop-diane-neal-returns/#more-196123

And place it above the Neal Baer departure news. Please/Thank you!!! --SVU4671 (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi MelbourneStar! I hope you don't mind, but a couple of your edits have turned up on my watchlist, and I've noticed that you seem to mark a large number of your edits as minor. In general, only typographical changes and the like should be marked as minor, and things like (for example) adding talkpage comments or adding or removing content from articles should not. Thanks!  -- Lear's Fool 14:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh...No off course I don't mind :) thanks for advising me...I will do my best in marking my edits correct. Is bit of a bad habbit. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem!  -- Lear's Fool 14:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lear's Fool...I accidentally have done it again :/ I can't help it...it's a really bad habbit putting "minor" on edits even though they don't seem minor. What should I do? :S -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal if you make the occasional error, just so long as you try to get yourself out of the habit. In some situations (like, for example, accidentally marking a bold or controversial edit as minor), you can use the edit summary of a null edit to note that the preceding edit wasn't minor (check the history of this talkpage and you'll see that I've demonstrated this), but that's not really necessary for simple mistakes like you've made today. Hope that helps!  -- Lear's Fool 08:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, marking talkpage edits as minor suppresses the "You have new messages" notification, so (if you're referring to your comment on Danjel's talkpage) a null edit may be needed after all.  -- Lear's Fool 08:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You again for the help :) Geez I must be a pain! :/ At one stage with Wikipedia I would totally forget all about the minor edit button...but now its the first thing I press before the save page button. Thank You Heaps! -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's no problem. Feel free to let me know on my talkpage if you'd like any more help.  -- Lear's Fool 08:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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.

-danjel (talk to me) 08:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Uploading images

Hi. These pages will also give you information and help: Wikipedia:Images, and Wikipedia:Files for upload. Follow the links in them for still more info, and if you get stuck ask me on my talk page. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You so much Kudpung! I will try upload the image, Hope it works :) Thanks -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 09:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Per character images at List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters

I've removed the per character images at this article. Please see the discussion as to why. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am back. I just cant say bye to WP. Can I please challenge 2 pictures?

They are of EADA Sonya Paxton and ADA Casey Novak. For Casey NovakI had an administrator help me upload it... -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 04:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A note

Hey MelbourneStar. Wikipedia can be a thankless place, it took me years to get any acknowledgement. The more work you do, in the more vocal areas, the more people will notice you and acknowledge your work. If you're doing small (but essential) work, editors don't notice. I'd just like to say, that from what I've seen, you're making an excellent editor, and I personally would be very sad to see you go. If you are every getting disheartened and want to whinge - feel free to email me. Otherwise, you know where I am. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Worm, let me tell you right now, I would be a very stupid editor if I were not to take your advice. I would be a very stupid editor if I were to retire. Thank You so much for your note, It has by far made my day. If you have any problems; issues; or just want to chat you can email me, Facebook me (if you have Facebook), or just talk to me on my talk page. I can tell you right now, with your kind words I will definately remain here. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, but I (and many others) deserve quite the opposite if you've been feeling underappreciated. Do stay, keep up the good work :) You've made more of an impact in a small time than I did when I started, I can see you doing big things in the future. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You said some really kind words, that deserve an appreciation. If I ever do leave, (I won't) It would never be because of you, or any other editors like you. You editors are the editors that keep the Wikipedia community close, by saying really kind things. I can tell you right now, I would have honestly had that feeling "should I stay? or go?". That feeling obviously changed when I read your note. We need more editors like you. Therefore I thank You :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. Work here on wikipedia is a little thankless sometimes, but whatever. :)

Bit worried to read that you had been thinking of leaving, so I'll echo Worm's comments above also. Take it easy. -danjel (talk to me) 09:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Danjel, you should not be thanking me, you most definately deserved it. :) Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi MelbourneStar. I don't have any problems with it myself, but I just thought I'd pop over and let you know that your signature doesn't conform to current guidelines. WP:SIG states that they should not include any images - due to server drain and half a dozen other reason. I'm sure someone would love to use it against you sooner or later - so it might be best to remove it before they get a chance :) Worm^TT · (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Worm :) ...ill remove it ASAP...I got the picture from another user's name, it was in an administrator's guest book called 'gallery' where there litterally hundreds of different users with pictures in their signature. Im on my Ipod now, so when I am on the computer, ill fix it. Thanks for the heads up :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problems. The restriction only applies to en.wikipedia, I've seen pictures used on other wikimedia sites, like meta for example. It might also be from before the rules changed over 5 years ago anyway. Or it might not be part of a signature, it might ahve just been an image in text - all the WP:WIKICUP entries have a flag associated for example. If you want me to look into it, let me know. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way... And in this case, your absolutely welcome do anything you like, in any way you like - but are you sure you want a record of every page you've editted on your userpage? It's likely to become a very long list as you're here a while. Especially if you were ever to get into vandal fighting or the like. If you're interested in seeing how many edits you've made and where you've been editting, have a look at this counter (which you've opted into, so you must have heard of) or this counter. Don't get me wrong, I keep a list of articles I feel I've added to significantly - but when I've edited 2,582 unique pages (you're at 288 and rising quickly!) - it's just too much to maintain. Oh also - I know you've not put yourself up for adoption, or requested it in anyway but I run a little adoption school at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt. If you're interested in running through it, let me know. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm! :) I keep a list of articles that I have edited, just so other editor's can have a look at different places I havecontributed. At around 300 Unique pages edited, I'll most definately remove the box, as you are most correct, it will take too long to manage :). With your adoption school, it sounds really interesting...And yes, I am interested in running through it. :) Thanks Worm :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just thinking of you, it's a lot of work. I mean, I find managing my userspace exhausting enough, and I can see yours snowballing! I'll create a page for you, User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/MelbourneStar1, and move a lesson or two across for you to play on whenever you like. Oh and you can look forward to a big ol barnstar at the end! Worm^TT · (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Worm! :) I'll most likely start the activities real soon...I can't wait! :) I'll have time to do this on the afternoon's of Monday-Thursday + Saturday and Sunday. School, although very interesting and helpful for the future it may be, unfortunately takes up a lot of my time :). I'll do my very best. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no rush. I designed it to be a module a week, but my other adoptees just get on with it and seem to do a module whenever they have the time. Sometimes it takes an hour, sometimes a few days, but it should give you a leg up for the future. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You so Much Worm. I am excited! This motivates me to continue Wikipedia, really. I'll get on it ASAP. :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi MelbourneStar. I've put up the first test, and answered your questions :) Worm^TT · (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Chadstone

Hi! Just a minor point, but I think it needs some clarification - in regard to Chadstone, I'm not refusing to accept facts. :) I guess what I'm trying to do is reconcile the problem that has emerged between one group of sources, which you've provided, and another group, which seem to contradict the first.

When using sources we also need to evaluate them, and the problem we're running into is that the sources which claim Chadstone to be the largest are either promotional or appear to be relying on promotional material. This makes things tricky, as promotional material is always going to be biased, and is especially a problem when making comparative claims, such as "best" or "biggest". Which is why I wanted the RfC - it is difficult to work out the best method of handling competing sources, especially when all the sources are possibly problematic for different reasons, and my hope is that other editors will be able to help. - Bilby (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

With respects to what your saying, the sources that you have provided, what are they? a bowl of gold fish?....because your sources, no offence, are worth the same as mine (just that there is much less supporting that the centre/s that you say are the largest in the Southern Hemisphere...when Chadstones do.). Thanks -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"This makes things tricky, as promotional material is always going to be biased" - Accusing 20 sources of bias is bit of a stretch, don't you think? and that is grounds anyway, for false advertisement. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess my point is that none of our sources are ideal - what I'd like is authoritative listing that we can rely on, but we just haven't been able to dig one up. The closest I think we get doesn't include Chadstone, but it is hard to know why. Hence the difficulty - a lot of different sources, all seemingly saying different things, none of which are clearly perfect, makes it hard to evaluate. But this doesn't mean that I'm refusing to accept the truth - just that evaluating sources is often very difficult to do. Anyway, we'll see where the discussion goes. - Bilby (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

20 different sources. Yes we most definately will see how the discussion goes. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Your rename

Sorry for the late response, as I was asleep when you posted to my talk page. Anyway, I would have to assume one of two things happened with your rename: 1. not all of your preferences, edits, etc. were transferred immediately to your new name, but I doubt that since your edit count is only about 1500, rather than in the tens of thousands (and accounts with that amount of edits can sometimes take time for everything to be transferred). 2. You logged into the old account name accidentally (which gets recreated when renaming a user) and ended up checking the edit count and contributions of the recreated old account. Looking at the account names in these two edits, I'd say 2 is what happened here, so no worries. :) Best. Acalamari 09:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Its one of those things that I get way to hasty...and start panicking. Thank You for your help Acalamari! :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Top Ryde City

Is the following better? This text is phrased in my own words and is less likely to be outdated due to the use of past tense (were). This text contains no emotive terms, is factual and cited.

"The Top Ryde City developers were unable to meet repayments of a $700m loan. Banks that provided construction finance appointed new management six months after opening."

Much better :) Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

2010

You are in a warring mode. I am going to again remove the election entry you added until a clear consensus can be reached. It has already been removed by a number of different editor that disagree with your edit and analysis of WP:RY. I suggest you refrain from adding it back in until some sort of consensus is reached in favor of adding. ttonyb (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at your User Talk Page. Read it, then reply Please. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rubirosa name

You asked for a reliable source before proceeding. Do you consider a screen cap as a reliable reference ? With all the editing programs available, I'm not sure... Anyway, if so : her badge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.147.24.41 (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're correct about the "editing programs", I'm now a little unsure, because...for example, type in "Constance Rubirosa" no site, whatsover, has the name Constance in it. Do me a favor, please keep the photo, make sure it's not deleted. That may of just proved your case. I will take this to LA's talk page, and we will see what other's think of it. Good Job! :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to L&O UK

The references you want are all {{Cite episode}} to each respective episode, just as are writer and director. Since that is redundant to cite an episode to itself when writing about itself it is not done. If the "based on" is original research then so are air dates, writers, directors, production codes, titles, the summaries, and hell even the existence of the episodes. Sound a bit silly? It does. To avoid copyright infringement the episode summaries by design are required to be original research. What you ask for would mean citing every writer, every director, every air date, every production code, and every everything else for every episode to the episodes themselves in the episode lists of every show. That would be a gross miss-use of {{Cite episode}} and so it is not done. Your edit undone because episode credits, which include the "based on" for L&O UK, are self-referential. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait this changes everything...So what you are saying is that L&O: UK's credits specifically say "this episode is based on..."...because if so, this does not have to be cited. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 00:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it might be more like the example i wrote out on the article talk page so that any future query like this might be more easily directed to the answer but.... The short answer is, yes, i am saying that the on screen credits specifically say the episodes are each based on one of the New York series' episodes. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you are willing to accept the credits from L&O UK episodes for the UK episodes but not for their antecedents? 76.204.89.112 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I personaly don't want to challenge the higher rank of articles yet, because unfortunately my consensus would be faced by a lot of Biasness. I'll take the lower rank of articles and work my up. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so your edit to the episode article is in furtherance of proving your point. Got it. 76.204.89.112 (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry about the accidental rollback on your userpage ... a slip of the mouse on my watchlist.--Melburnian (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL - nevermind, I did the exact same thing like a couple of days ago to another editor ;)

It happens :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Black metal page vandalism?

You referred to my recent edits on the article for black metal as vandalism/unconstructive. I suppose it could be argued, but accusing me of vandalism is a little offensive. Aarseth and Ohlin are known more widely by their stage names (Euronymous and Dead respectively) and this is how they are generally referred to in the liner notes for their albums, and in music publications. Your comment/reversion is particularly puzzling in Euronymous's case, because this is the name under which he is listed on wikipedia. Could you please explain what problem you had with the changes I made? 71.198.142.169 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mass merge of Universal Studios Florida former attraction articles

Recently, a mass deletion discussion was closed with the consensus to merge and redirect all articles to List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions. If you would like to assist please visit the destination article's talk page to discuss what needs to be done. I have contacted you specifically because you are listed as a member of the Universal taskforce for the Amusement Parks WikiProject. Kind Regards Themeparkgc  Talk  23:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Message added 12:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Crisco 1492's talk page.
Message added 13:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Any luck? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Crisco 1492's talk page.
Message added 09:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Guidance Barnstar

Thanks a lot! I am glad you have gotten the hang of uploading stuff at Commons. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

Sorry, just thought that was what it was... considering the nature of the show. Sorry. 218.215.81.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC).

Apology accepted. If you need further assistance, please feel free to ask me. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

See Aust tallest buildings talk page.

aust tallest buildings talk page

see aust tallest buildings talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 11:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

2008 and Obama

Don't remove his election again. You're just proving a WP:POINT as you lost the argument at Talk:2010 to people who are owning the year articles. Compare [4] and [5] for one example of why the two elections are not directly equivalent and one removal is not precedent (WP:OTHER) for the other. Fences&Windows 22:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Indian Express thought Gillard worth a mention in their summary of 2010, btw.[6] Such sources are how to prove that her election is worth including. Fences&Windows 22:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me this, but I did happen to share very simmilar views to others, if you read the talk page properly. Also general elections etc. belong in '20-- in Politics'. What makes this election so special...an African leader? (when there is ~50 African leaders in Africa?). Finally, an American election -- How does that affect the whole world, exactly?

What I'm still confused about, is why we would allow one, and not the other.-- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 00:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

DerbyCountyNZ acting like he owns these articles is no justification for not including Gillard and removing Obama from 2008. As that would be one of the top events listed in reliable sources that round up 2008, such a removal would be a farce. MelbourneStar1, do it again and I'll report you to WP:ANI for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. What was I suppose to do? say "hey, why not? we could have Barack Obama (First African Leader - General Election) in 2008 & 2009 artilces, but we'll forget Julia Gillard (First Female Leader - NOT a General Election)...and ever other significant cases with World leaders.

I'm not going to remove it, unless something is to change - but threatening me with ANI is now as useless as having me here. I have seen so many brilliant editors who had been with the project for years - Retired, all because they challenge an Administrator! I'm not going to use the old "I'm a teenager - I don't know any better..blah blah" I'm using the excuse many editors who have used. I come here to edit, and not for having someone come stand in my way, from out of knowhere! so to your little threat about reporting me to ANI, please go ahead, I'm sure my userpage will look much neater, with a new template on it. Sick of it, Absolutely sick of it. Thank You, -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 01:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And I love it how all my actions on the Years article seem to be disruptive! I mean I add a Prime Minister to the 2010 article With Reliable World sources, then I have the whole WP years community against me. Then that is removed, so I remove any other PM/ Pres. election, which was discussed on the talk page, and then for some reason, I'm in the wrong, once again. I can't go to consensus for this, because unfortunately it will' be faced with biasness, that too anywhere else. I have also taken the thought, that maybe my edit is in the wrong -- which I calmly concluded that I'm in the right, I have reverted information that is 1. Not notable by the World (or dosen't Affect the whole world), 2. ignores WP:RY Guidlines about not adding Gen. elections, 3. Is the only president added to the years article in the entire world!

Is it really my time to Call it a day, and move on? I mean, I'm getting knowhere...I can't challenge someone with authority, because it's against what I believe, but I can't look up to you, because what you are making, is still an unfair descision...and I don't know why you or any others aren't seeing it that way. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 01:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't be childish, just because Gillard was removed from 2010 doesn't mean you should react by removing Obama from 2008. There's no reason to leave just because you've clashed with other editors and I've pulled you up sharp for what I thought was a disruptive edit. I don't always get my own way either, and in this case there really is no consensus. Editors are pointing to a guideline, WP:RY, that seems to be poorly thought out to steamroller their own views.

Removing Gillard is an unfair decision and I'm minded to try to revert it using a wider RfC, especially as some bright spark has just removed Obama from 2008 again - those people camped out on the year pages are coming with the ridiculous rules and local consensus to remove plainly highly noteworthy events. Another example was removing the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake from 2011, e.g. see Talk:2011#2011_Christchurch_earthquake - it devastated the city, caused billions in damage, killed nearly 200 people, worldwide coverage, state of emergency... but apparently none of that it significant enough for them. Fences&Windows 17:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

14 is still a child, but barring that, it is a little strange why they would remove the Christchurch earthquakes from the Years Article...They also removed the 2011 Queensland Floods which devastated Australia's 3rd largest city, killing 35, at a cost of $30 bil., and the reson they removed it, was because it didn't affect the world, and there was another flood in Brazil which killed 800+. I'm getting a little sick of rules just been pulled out of knowherre, when they do have specific guidlines outlined in WP:RY. I won't remove Obama from those articles, but if possible, something really needs to be done on those articles. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 00:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, we're on the same side on this! There is a real problem with these year articles and I don't know if it's the WP:RY guideline itself or the interpretation of it by a few users. I think the crux of the problem is a fixation on "international significance" which is being literally (i.e. poorly) interpreted to mean a material impact on more than one country rather than substantial worldwide interest in the event (i.e. global coverage in reliable sources). Problems always arise when Wikipedians start strictly enforcing supposed "rules" without thinking through the reasons for them. I think a request for comments is called for. I will think about it more and perhaps consult some other editors before preparing one. p.s. I didn't know you were young. In any case I shouldn't have used the tone I did, so please accept my apologies, and a slap on the wrist for me. Fences&Windows 15:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the really late reply, I just saw this now :S You didn't need to apologize, I'm stubborn, that's all. Well apology accepted anyway, and I have refrained from editing on the Years Article's just in case I might become involved in a dispute.I'm sorry too, I shouldn't have "challenged" you I guess, I shouldn't of gotten my age into this - I may be young, but it is my choice to edit here, so age shouldn't be an excuse. Oh and sorry for the belated reply :D -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:Kudpung, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This may have been an error on your part, but please do not, under any circumstances, delete, revert, or refactor content from users' talk pages except your own. See WP:USERPAGES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied at you usertalk page. Again sorry :S -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - things happen! I have struck the above warning. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Kudpung!...Usually I'm fast at reverting my Rollback. Guess I didn't notice it this time. Anyway, I have learnt my lesson :) Won't be using WP on my Ipod anymore. Best reguards, -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Printscreen" it yourself

All of the time and energy that you're spending engaged in this edit war could be used to locate a source that you deem acceptable. That you have repeatedly refused to seek out such a source in favor of expecting someone else to do the work to satisfy your demands speaks very clearly that you have no interest in improving the article and this is all in service of the point you're trying to make. 76.204.97.251 (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Here, I'll even do the Google search for you. 76.204.97.251 (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. See, now do you understand? now revert your edit, as these are Maintanence templates, and I will be giving you a warning for their removal. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing? I somehow doubt that you reviewed every Google result in two minutes and I see all sorts of sites through which the episode may be accessed. If you're not willing to do that then in good faith you should accept the word of someone who has watched the episode and seen the credits. 76.204.97.251 (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you see so many sites the episode can be accessed, show them. And also, If you were to provide an unsourced statement on Wikipedia, and I were to revert it, you don't go, "how about you go find references for that statement", even though you added it. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

But as I've explained to you so many times, the credits of the UK episode clearly and unambiguously state the relationship between the two episodes. I have seen the episode twice and the credit is there. Why do you continually fail to extend the crumb of good faith required to accept this? 76.204.97.251 (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I could go on any L&O episode article and say the exact same thing as you - but it can be false, Oh yes, because there is no reference to back it up. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is not truth; it is verifiability. Yes, you could disruptively add false information to any episode article but another editor would be able to verify the information by viewing the UK episode in question. Just as you can view "Samaritan" and verify the information vis a vis "Manhood". That you choose not to verify the information does not mean that it doesn't meet the Wikipedia standard of verifiability. 76.204.97.251 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan's College of Engineering

Hi =) Apologies, I reverted Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan's College of Engineering back to the version pre Tigdi.shreyas's edits before seeing your comments on their talk page. RE: the mentioned proposal for deletion - unless overtly promotional, schools are inherently notable and as such very few will be deleted. Cheers, Nikthestoned 14:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Don't worry - I only mentioned that I would delete the article, only so s/he could remove the unsourced edits, as I can't because that would be in violation of 3RR, plus I'm currently off the computer and on my ipod, so makes things more difficult to do...Oh and also the for the fact that I have been here on the project since Dec. last year and still don't know how to nominate an article for deletion ;P Thank you for bringing me up to date, happy editing! :D -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 15:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You too =) Nikthestoned 15:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Knight Rider (1982 TV series) episodes

[7] All this info is summarised from the main series article and all of it is easily verifiable. Please explain to me how WP:OR applies. --195.14.223.31 (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there references in that particular edit? If not, WP:OR most definately applies. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The info is easily verifiable, in full accordance with WP:V.

OR accordingly states: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists".

WP:V prominently (and in bold, no less), states that "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material".

So this is really down to you: Do you sincerely challenge any of the info I added? If so, I suggest you take a cursory glance at Google. You'll find plenty of published material to back up every bit I added. OR does not apply. Please don't try to mess with me on policy issues, I know what I am doing. --195.14.223.31 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you know what you're doing, reference it, or I'll remove it. It must be accompanied with a reliable source. It is not up to me to find the source. You are the one adding in the non-sourced information that article, so you supply the references to support your edit. Do not wait for other editors to fix your edit up, fix it up, yourself. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. Material unlikely to be challenged does not need an inline citation. Carefully read through WP:V. I do not need to provide a specific source for something unlikely to be challenged. You are completely misunderstanding our sourcing policy. It's an understandable error, but still an error.

You are the one who is challenging the material. I personally regard that as somewhat curious, along our core sourcing policy, since all of that info is easily verifiable.

By removing the material I added, you are challenging the info itself. You can not remove material based on the lack of an included reference, in accordance with WP:V. By removing it, you are --like it or not-- stating that you challenge the factuality of the material itself. So this is my question to you: Do you actually challenge the factuality of the material itself? Then google it. --195.14.223.31 (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OH MY...You're going to think of me as absolutely stupid, but I just realised my own mistake. I took another read of the edit etc. You are correct. I don't know why I would even think to challenge that, Like seriously :S Sorry, it's 12:00 AM here -- I'm half asleep. Sorry again, I'll revert my changes. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would I think of someone as stupid who has the backbone to recognise and amend an understandable error? --195.14.223.31 (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, Thank You :D And sorry for the trouble. I reverted my edit. We're good to go. Happy Editing! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)