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.

Hey, first of all, a warm greeting to you. It has come to my observation that you left a message on my talk page. I have gone through your message regarding the page "Jai Shri Ram". This is to inform you that I was unable to render a satisfactory answer to my need to of seeing an unbiased approach to the page. I have seen that whenever I try to post an unbiased opinion about the page it is reverted back by you. Thus, unfortunately, it portrays your image as a biased un-secular mod. I have been in contact with another MOD and I have looked into possibilities about how can I find success in posting a brief edit, it was suggested that the Introductory paragraph should be neutral. I did just that but you still flagged the edit. I am failing to understand your approach regarding this issue and thus gives out your support for communal atrocities.

My next issue is, factshunt is a site which is not biased and could be trusted as a reliable source. If you could provide me with an insight into how it motivates communal tendencies, it would be acknowledgeable.

As per my right as an editor, if my issues are not solved with a neutral approach I am entitled to rule against these issues by requesting a third person response and might even go further with the notice board dispute resolution for your edits.

Apologies for the inconvenience caused. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parassharma1 ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @ Parassharma1:

Please note, that you not liking the content or an answer to your question is not an adequate reason to replace sourced content with poorly sourced content -- especially without even seeking consensus on the article's talk page. As I'm aware, you have yet to even make a comment on the article's talk page.

You're more than welcome to seek a third opinion, but I would be reverting that edit irrespective of whether you made it or someone else did. Why? again, because it removes content without establishing consensus to do so. Wikipedia is a collaborative project -- not the Wild West where one person determines what stays and what goes. The content that you would like removed was added in by multiple editors (myself not included) and multiple editors have retained it (myself included) -- that is consensus.

My approach would ordinarily entail reporting your account to an administrator's noticeboard because you have consistently removed content without an adequate reason, against consensus. That is disruptive. Instead, I've chosen to discuss your edits with you -- something you should be doing. Regards, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 04:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've engaged Newslinger on their talk page. They've offered you great advice, and it would be prudent to take said advice. Thank you, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 04:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

my problem is that Takbir do not have such negative remarks on the introduction paragraph. I would like to know why do this Page has such remarks on the intro? I was told it was supposed to be neutral. I am awaiting response, Thank you. Parassharma1 ( talk) 11:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Parassharma1: you are more than welcome to raise that concern at Talk:Takbir, but comparing articles is not very helpful. The subjects are completely different and their coverage in reliable sources is also different. I'm not terribly familiar with the ins and outs of the Takbir article, but my understanding is that there is no consensus for changes to its lead; where as, there is consensus in the Jai Shri Ram to maintain its lead as it is. Kind regards, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 11:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I was in conversation with another mod here known as Newslinger, he did mention Takbir when I was talking to him about Jai shree ram that there are negative things in Takbir page too. I want to know why it is being talked around now, both of them has similarities for being a greeting. I believe such negative things should be wrote in its proper column than on the intro as it is straight up hurts the sentiments of people. Thanks. Parassharma1 ( talk) 11:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Parassharma1: having read your discussion with Newslinger, they've pointed you out to a request for comment (here) on the matter (Takbir's lead section) -- yet, you have not participated in it. If you believe that the Takbir article needs to discuss the 'negative' aspects in the lead, you ought to contribute to that discussion?

Secondly, and importantly: the Jai Shri Ram article's lead accurately summarises the body of the article, as prescribed by MOS:LEAD. Wikipedia has no intention of insulting people, but censoring content -- that is verified by reliable sources -- is not what Wikipedia does, either. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 11:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That is not sensible at all. I will rather start this on the talk page of Jai Shree Ram than Takbir. I won't go around and ask this to be added to every religious greeting on every religion ever. And NO, It does not comply with MOS:LEAD. It clearly states that the lead should be neutral. Please check the format of the lead once more. Jai Shree Ram lead is not neutral at all. Please fix it or at least start this discussion in the talk page of Jai Shree Ram. Thank you. Parassharma1 ( talk) 18:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Parassharma1: it complies, you just don't like it. The issue of the lead has long been resolved, now it's time to move on. Kind regards, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 03:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MelbourneStar, I saw that you made a draft for a new article at User:MelbourneStar/Scenic Railway (Luna Park). Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable. But in this case, you haven't edited your draft for a long time. If you wish to improve the draft yourself, please do. Otherwise, you may consider donating it to WikiProject Abandoned Drafts (a participant can help). Thank you. Zinnober9 ( talk) 06:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @ Zinnober9: geez, that was a very long time ago indeed. I might hold onto it for now, in a month or so I should have more time to do article writing. Kind regards, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 07:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I saw it listed in this project Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts and figured it had been forgotten about. Just wanted to bring it to your attention if you were still interested in it. Cheers! Zinnober9 ( talk) 07:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Zinnober9: Perhpas I should remove the tag? that way it won't be flagged? — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 07:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm a bit new to the project. Yours is the first "live" one I've run across where the creator has been active in the last 3 years. I think that the comment I left beside its listing saying you're active and have been notified is probably enough, but you could do a no change edit to the draft with an edit summary noting you "forgot about it and plan to continue on it" wouldn't hurt. The main things that people of the project check before flagging/nominating for deletion is the article content, last human edit (ignoring bots), and if the original creator is still active and that sort of thing. If it's good content but from an absent user, they'll pass it to someone interested in helping that draft. Since you are active and it is a good looking draft, it shouldn't get flagged or passed around. Zinnober9 ( talk) 08:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay perfect. Well thank you, @ Zinnober9: and happy editing! — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 10:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

There’s a debate on the talk page for the Trump 2020 Republican oppositions that you might want to take a look at. Thanks! Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 22:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Funny you ask, I only just added a new lead image to the Australia 108 page. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 06:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@ HappyWaldo: excellent stuff! thank you, they both look great! — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 06:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Melbourne Star! It’s me again. There is an rfc on the talk page of List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign and I’d appreciate if you could add your opinion there. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 17:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

My prediction will come true. Please make a note of it for future reference. You can always apologise to me later and acknowledge my foresight. Ningnongtwit ( talk) 13:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @ Ningnongtwit: I mean this with all sincerity— Wikipedia is not at all, and never will be, interested in predictions (especially ones steeped in original research). Whether or not the prediction comes true in over two years' time, is not really something I'm concerned about. Feel free to post about your prediction on a blog, but please only add facts to Wikipedia, as discussed in reliable sources. Kind regards, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 13:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to edit requests at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. The 4½-hour offset from IST to AEST allows you to answer on the same day requests from India are posted, whereas replies by me must wait overnight due to the 11½-hour offset from IST to USA. Your assistance is appreciated. NedFausa ( talk) 17:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries @ NedFausa: being on the other side of the world does have some advantages! — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 05:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive edits which do not adhere to consensus. Thank you. Skcin7 ( talk) 11:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It's your edits (like this gem) which don't adhere to consensus and have been disruptive (if continued will get you blocked). Hence why those edits have been reverted by multiple editors, where as mine have not. Kind regards, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not write an opinion about Gavin McInnes but facts: 1) his wife is Native American 2) left wing activists call the Proud Boys a neo facist organization. Those are not my opinion but facts. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroniel2 ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Aroniel2: read WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE -- and then consider why you were blocked (and unblocked) in the first place. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 04:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I know: because I pointed to the facts that 1) his wife is Native American 2) left wing activists consider the Proud Boys a neofacist group. I would consider a correction if I can see empirical evidence that 1) his wife is not Native American 2)Left wing groups do not consider the Proudt Boys a neofascist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroniel2 ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Aroniel2: You've evidently not read WP:UNDUE. As I've already said to you, continue down that path of POV-editing, you will be blocked again. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 04:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I would consider a correction if I can see empirical evidence that 1) his wife is not Native American 2)Left wing groups do not consider the Proudt Boys a neofascist group. Please provide evidence of those and I will apologize. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroniel2 ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Aroniel2: read WP:UNDUE. If you wish to not listen, that's your call. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 05:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

My call is clear: offer an honest apology if I can see empirical evidence that 1) his wife is not Native American 2)Left wing groups do not consider the Proudt Boys a neofascist group. If I see it then I will apologize. Aroniel2 ( talk) 06:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Aroniel2: regardless of whether the content you're adding in is correct or not, it is undue - which is a NPOV problem. If you keep engaging in POV-editing, you will be blocked again. I won't repeat myself again. Other than that, don't respond to this message as it will be reverted. Thanks, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 06:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I think we've given entirely too much oxygen to the troll on Michelle's talkpage. My opinion is we stop feeding him - he obviously craves attention and what he's asking for is trumpian bullshit. Cheers Tvoz/ talk 21:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Tvoz: oh 100%, I get that impression too. My mistake for initially taking them seriously. If they don’t drop the stick, I’ll happily take it to ANI— their behaviour is disruptive. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 00:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree - ping me if you do. Tvoz/ talk 00:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

List of deaths due to COVID-19 has been proposed again for deletion. Your opinion on the matter could be useful -- Pesqara ( talk) 15:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Makkinga ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am the author of the revision you want to ask.

Obviously, It's about the controversy of Taiwan. First, I add (Republic of China) because it is Taiwan's official name. This name is longer but less controversial than "Taiwan." Technically, Taiwan may be the Taiwan province of the People's republic of China, which is just an empty institution. Also, I changed states to states/regions for less controversy. It is hard to determine whether Taiwan is a state or a region, but it has to be one of them. By adding this, whether readers think it is a state or a region, it is both acceptable.

If the article is changed then it will seem that the lawofficer.com was trustworthy. The policy regarding the overwhelming majority of media sources will have to be reconsidered. Do you agree? Are.u.sure ( talk) 03:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Are.u.sure: that's a hypothetical on a hypothetical on another hypothetical. Firstly, the source you've provided is unreliable, so that's an obvious non-starter. Additionally, you've not demonstrated any significant coverage in reliable sources to back your claims, and hence: the policy ( WP:DUEWEIGHT) won't be reconsidered. In other words, re "If the article is changed"... it will need significant coverage to support such change, otherwise that won't happen. So I disagree with the premise of your question. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 03:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that you are gaslighting? The sources I have used are existing ones, already in use on the Wikipedia. Are.u.sure ( talk) 03:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

1) The autopsy does not mention the word homicide 2) The word homicide appears in the Press Release report https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BRnlE0VA9bl3WNYZiFa6fi2EEEOK0DMd/view?usp=drivesdk 3) The word is in the Manner of Death section 4) There is a Comment section describing the use of the Manner of Death section 5) The section is described in a Wikipedia page of the same name where only 6 words can be used

My contentions is that the autopsy does not support the widely-reported assumption that the death was consequent to the actions of law enforcement.

As a separate matter, I noticed but didn't comment on, the fact that the link to the autopsy report was broken. Are.u.sure ( talk) 03:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Are.u.sure: as I've said a number of times, and won't continue to repeat myself: the terminology currently used in the article is supported by a significant amount of reliable sources. In response to all five of the dot points: Wikipedia relies upon published secondary reliable sources (books, news articles, etc. independent of the subject). The sources you're providing are either completely unreliable, or primary sources. Nothing I've said is "gaslighting", but considering a number of editors are telling you the same thing over and over again: it seems pretty disingenuous on your part that you're failing to get the point. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 07:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

As I've said. I'm using your own 'reliable' sources, which are already on the Wikipedia. Are.u.sure ( talk) 07:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The autopsy is a secondary source. Secondary in the usual sense. The 'reliable sources' are quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, nonary, denary, ... Are.u.sure ( talk) 07:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Are.u.sure: it would appear that you do not know when to drop the stick, and despite so many editors telling you otherwise, you continue to bludgeon the process with the same points. Good luck with that approach, I'm sure it will have the desired outcome. I've said what I've said on the matter, and have nothing further to add here. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 11:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for.

Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC) The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure ( talk) 04:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @ CAPTAIN RAJU:, a decade has gone quickly. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 12:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas MelbourneStar
	Hi MelbourneStar, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,    – Davey2010 Talk 19:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Law & Order Special Victims Unit Season 15 cast.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 03:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MelbourneStar. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chase Stokes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 06:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)