User talk:MelbourneStar/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Friendly request

Hello Mel! I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not, but the <font> tag that you are using in your signature is deprecated/obsolete. With what you wanted to do, changing from font tags to proper span tags, while it would have fit, would have made your signature length push the 255 limit. As such, I've made a minor modification to the font weight to make it all bold, which is actually not a bad idea as the color contrast ration in your characters if kind of low and doesn't comply with the WCAG standard mentioned in WP:SIGAPP. If you are interested in updating your signature to use newer HTML5 compatible code, that's is a little easier for color impaired viewers to see, I suggest replacing:

—[[User:MelbourneStar|<font color="#E62020">Mel</font><font color="#FF2400">bourne</font><font color="#FF7538">Star</font>]]<span style="color:#FF9F00;">☆</span>[[User talk:MelbourneStar|<sup><font color="3D0376">''talk''</font></sup>]]

with:

—[[User:MelbourneStar|<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b>]]<b style="color:#FA0">☆</b>[[User talk:MelbourneStar|<sup style="color:#407">'''''talk'''''</sup>]]

which will result in a 214 character long signature (15 characters shorter) with an appearance of: —MelbourneStar☆^talk
compared to your existing 229 character long signature of: —MelbourneStar☆^talk
— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Technical!

I was not aware of this; however, I tend to agree with you and accept your request. Accepted

I've tweaked it slightly, but henceforth my username will be bolded for the convenience of others.

Kind regards and thanks for bringing this to my attention, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Morgan Page Edit

Myself and several other fans are actually afraid of Morgan Page, I felt my contribution actually was constructive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.64.46.68 (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You may feel whatever it is you like; if you continue to make unconstructive edits, you may lose your editing privileges. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

125.237.180.136

Hello I am just letting you know that this IP user 125.237.180.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) keeps on vandalizing in different places as he/she did at [1]. I saw your warnings and reported at AIV. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 12:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi A.Minkowiski,

Thank you for that. Also, glad to see you made the right decision with in regards to the topic of our previous chat. If you need anything, please don't hesitate in asking. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

your suggestion and andvice regarding previous chat encouraged me alot. I just want to say Wikipedia is just a place where I want to contribute for my whole life. I can't leave it A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 13:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Clueman article

Whats been the reason to deletion of my article ? I am the soul owner of the Brand Clueman and i got my rights to write an article on it.

Could you please kindly cooperate positively.

Thank you, Abdus salaam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abclue (talk • contribs) 09:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Abdus salaam (Clueman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abclue (talk • contribs) 09:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Silviu Mihăilă‎

FYI, I've started a page on the editors over at SPI. --Finngall ^talk 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty, hopefully we'll see progress with that. I'm reverting any removal of the AfD. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

175.29.181.142

Just FYI, the ip and Arafatsourav760 (talk · contribs) are the same. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 13:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparantly, they assume we can't see that. Sad really. Thanks for the notif! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed link to an external page

Hello MelbourneStar,

You removed a link I added. My point was to add another example of lightweight application virtualization. Instead, should I proceed like CDE did [in this page], that is, by adding references to academic research papers about this [new] example?

Thanks for you attention, Cédric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedric-vincent (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cedric!

I did remove a link you had added to an article, as it was slightly spammy. With that said, the alternative you've suggested is spot on; provided that the sources are reliable and hence the content is verifiable, you may proceed with the change. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Stop reverting everything before me! :( Vacation9 14:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Muahahaha! thank you Vacation! and sorry too!

One will be going off soon, and it'll be all yours to conquer! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted to wrong version

Thank you very much for your vandalism whacking. I just thought you'd want to know that in this edit you revered to a vandalized version of the article rather than the last good version.

Thanks again. Edison (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh thanks! I believe it was a case of one vandal being able to disguise their edits - and another, not so much. Either way, perhaps the only thing 'humiliating' as one of the Ip's say, is that I didn't notice their edit - usually I do. Anyway, I concur, and thank you! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

sleep paralysis

Hi Melbournestar

I just read your page on sleep paralysis. I am a long time sufferer of RISP (pretty much all my life) and have back to back episodes almost every night and it is terrifying and exhausting. I wanted to Thank You for contributing to the SP page because it is the most thorough information I have ever come across on the topic and I even learned some things I didn't know.

Can I ask where you learned so much about it? Because there's not a whole lot of info on the subject and that is a little discouraging. I wanted to ask your opinion on something... My SP episodes are ALWAYS at sleep onset, never upon awakening and I understand the theory between SP and REM, which explains how that would occur upon awakening, but that theory doesn't really hold water and make sense for the episodes that occur at the onset of sleep because when I (or anyone suffering from sleep onset SP) lays down to go to sleep, we're haven't actually gone to sleep yet when SP occurs we're still awake and have been since we laid down, so how can we have fallen into REM if we haven't even fallen asleep yet? It makes sense if you're having an SP episode as you are waking up and youre still in REM, but it doesn't make sense to explain how/why SP occurs at sleep onset because we are awake the whole time and therefore we never went to sleep, and accessed REM, so how does it play a role for this particular "sleep onset" type of SP?

(FYI: i heard that sleep onset SP in exclusively an symptom of narcolepsy and almost never occurs in people who are not narcoleptic, but I don't have narcolepsy and I solely experience sleep onset SP and have never had an episode upon awakening. From the information you provided on the Wikipage, it says only 3% of SP sufferers experience sleep onset SP who are not natcoleptic. Wow, that's a very small sliver of people! I can't believe I am one of them!

Thank you for your input, i appreciate it so very much, you have NO idea! ♥ Gettup (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gettup and welcome to Wikipedia!

The article in question, sleep paralysis, has been edited by hundreds of different editors (not just me). But obviously on behalf of those who have edited, we're glad that you believe the content is useful and or helpful. Although I, or probably anyone else here on Wikipedia, wouldn't be able to offer advice with regards to your query, I'm sure this section which comprises the sources used for the article may be of assistance. Hope that helps! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

query about content removal of IPTL

Could you please explain why the content has been removed despite of right references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.124.2 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, would you be able to clarify which article you're enquiring about? Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

apology for vandalization

hey melborne i am sorry for vandalizing. i am not blocked. but i need to grow up. im 19 in real life and its time i started acting like it. so. i apologize for vandalizing wikipedia. it wont happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codym1314 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Page: Manoj Srivastava

The mentioned page should be removed, as it's a fake page created by the son of Manoj Srivastava, Kunal Srivastava to push his father's image in every way. I know Manoj Srivastava personally and therefore know that the published "infos" are mostly fake. Manoj Srivastava is no person of public interest, he is neither a filmmaker, publisher, director, festival director whatsorever. So please delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiObserver12345 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The Janoskians

Hi Melbs

I'd rather make the Criticism section of the Janoskians' wiki more two sided. The original text is not entirely accurate. It came from the Aussie mainstream media, which, as far as I know (since I'm not Australian), sides the famous, whether you want to admit or not

If your problem now is me citing Mr Lewis Spears' vlog, please let me know, because Mr Spears' vlog, however "controversial", speaks up the side of the Oct 2012 incident the Aussie media did not report. Until then, I will continue to revert their page to the truth that was not reported in the media

Sincerely, Ronnie RetsboL 101.127.38.105 (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: You'll understand me once you've watched Media Watch's criticism on Today Tonight's report on Mr Spears and Mr Tristan Barker

Mr Lewis Spears' vlog is not a reliable source. His vlog cannot be used per WP:ABOUTSELF as it makes claims about third parties. This article falls under the scope of biographies of living persons, and so therefore content that is not attributed to verifiable reliable sources – is out.

You may add said content in, once you have those reliable "mainstream media" sources to back those claims. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Janoskians part 2

Hi Melbs,

I understand your belief that it is not okay to take from 'unreliable' sources, as they tend to not be useful for proving a side of the story. However, it is a fact that the mainstream media earns revenue via people visiting them, making it conducive for advertising. This means the media must side with the popular celebrities, to avoid boycotting.

There, did I just prove that the mainstream media is likely more one-sided than Facebeef? You keep insisting that I get reliable sources, yet did you do in-depth research to the other side where Mr Spears stands? Or are you dismissing Spears because some sensationalist news report (another good way of gain readership) told you he was a "cyberbully"?

As of now, I am all eyes to read your counter-arguments. I'll be happy if you can convince me to stop redoing my edits. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from, the way I can see where you're coming from.

Sincerely, Ronnie RetsboL 101.127.38.105 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: pls dun delete my posts. support free speech!

Hi Ronnie,

First of all, unless the source is a reliable secondary source (read this, this & this) the content you wish to be added/changed cannot not be done so in this instance with a primary source (such as Facebeef or Lewis Spears). Those said sources are unreliable, and hence make additional third-party claims. This is not my rule, this is Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons.

I hope that explanation suffices.

Secondly, please note that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just been made aware of your message of 7 Dec 2013 alleging that I deleted an entire talk page in relation to the Monteverdi Vespers. I've searched the history section of the article without finding any confirmation that this happened, so I'm in the dark. But I'll be away for the next five weeks and offline, so, though I'd be grateful for a more detailed explantation, in the real world I don't think I'm likely to get one. I did have an issue with the Denis Stevens edition, which omits the motets you mention and I may have been trying to draw attention to it, but not by any kind of scorched earth tactics. So nest time I'll take more conscious care to be more selective. best wishes Delahays.Delahays (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just seen your December allegation that I deleted a talk page relating to Monteverdi Vespers and tried to respond, but the transfer of one page to another seems to have been down to the pub and come back worse for wear. I've now found what I am alleged to have deleted and I can't see why anyone knowingly would have, least of all, me. But I was having an issue with the Denis Stevens edition of the Vespers at the time, which omits the motets and it could be I was typing something about it. Why 4 tildes would have deleted everything I can't guess. Good job you noticed. As for the issue, it has probably died the death, though I could have done without Stevens's omissions - he recorded his version, too. Floreat Wikipedia.Delahays (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia for page protection

Thanks for your clean-up edit at the Wikipedia page last week. Last call for opinions on RFC at Wikipedia page for page protection extension. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Hart

I am trying to update my OWN page and you keep undoing it and then accusing me of adding uncourced content, IAM the SOURCE what can I dio? verty fryustrating, please can you leave my page alone, i'm trying to keep my list of publications up to date, and don't block me Christopher Hart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherharttoss (talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

why do you keep undoing my edits to my own entry on Wikipedia? My new novel Ivan the Terrible has just come out, you can check on Amazon, and you keep undoing it again. I really really do not understand, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be open to all and I am trying to be accurate. I can only assume you are undoing my revisions out of malice Christopher Hart, also writes as William Napier http://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Crusaders-Ivan-Terrible/dp/1409105377/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408713398&sr=1-4&keywords=ivan+the+terrible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherharttoss (talk • contribs) 13:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Christopher, welcome to Wikipedia!

Firstly, nobody owns articles on Wikipedia, and hence anyone is able to edit any article. With that said, secondly, no one can add content that is in violation of basic policies - such as Wikipedia:Verifiability - including the individual whom the article is about. The content changes you had made constituted to original research (ie. no reliable published source was provided to corroborate said content). Should you have sources that back up your assertions, please by all means add the content back in with those sources. I know things here appear to be complicated, but we have good reasons

Please read this which may assist you in dealing with any perceived errors within the article about yourself.

Furthermore, I have removed a section within the article that is completely unsourced, and would need reliable sources to verify it.

Also, please note that no malice is intended.

Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

North Eastern Electricity Board

Hi

I have undone the redirect on the North Eastern Electricity Board page as I am building up the company profile before it was privatized and was renamed Northern Electric

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyemsdad (talk • contribs)

Hi Garyemsdad, and welcome to Wikipedia!

There's certainly no issues regarding what you're now doing. Only thing I would suggest for future references is using edit summaries which explains to other editors what exactly you are doing, and hence to avoid unnecessary confusion. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aspire Parramatta may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• com/building.php?building_id=13384 Aspire Parramatta] - on [[CTBUH]] Skyscraper Center]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For all your hard work reverting vandalism on the Neighbours and Home and Away articles. 5 albert square (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, 5 albert square! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 00:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	After the attack on my page a few hours ago, I greatly accept your courage to fight against vandalism! I keep track of all vandal edits on my page and it's a thanks to have you monitor my page! DSCrowned(Talk) 03:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much DS!

Also, please keep up the marvellous job you're doing in reverting vandalism on the project.

Your user page, I've noticed, has received a considerable amount of IP vandalism of recent - you should perhaps have it semi-protected? Just a suggestion. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have asked somebody to semi-protect the page. However, it has not been done, User:Materialscientist came in and reverted a vandalism edit, but he may not have noticed my request to protect the page at Wikipedia's requests for page protection page. DSCrowned^(Talk) 08:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the report and I'm quite baffled as to the rationale behind not granting the protection. I count 10 vandalism related edits to the user page, from different IP addresses, in the past 24 hours. For now I suppose, let it slip. Should it persist, report it again, and I'll be more than happy to assist as I think that's pretty rediculous. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

consciousness

Hi,

This is a response to your message to me at

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Hguolcr

with regard to consciousness. The best source reference for that is that of Leibniz, who called it apperception. See

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Apperception

where it says

"The term originates with René Descartes in the form of the word apercevoir in his book Traité des passions. Leibniz introduced the concept of apperception into the more technical philosophical tradition, in his work Principes de la nature fondés en raison et de la grâce; although he used the word practically in the sense of the modern attention, by which an object is apprehended as "not-self" and yet in relation to the self."

but that does not explain Leibniz's model of perception, which is given on

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/#PerApp

Thgis is unnecessarily complicated. I give a much simpler description on

https://plus.google.com/102826634347882994527/posts/KgWrPCPTA8S

as

"Consciousness is (awareness of a) perception. Leibniz called this apperception. The conversion by Plato's Mind of physical sensory never signals into mental experience. This is only possible in platonic or idealistic philosophies, such as that of Leibniz." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hguolcr (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi

This concerns your "Leibniz's gap" page at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Leibniz%27s_gap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hguolcr (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Leibniz would not allow for any gap, and I think the conclusion is based on an unfortunate misappropriation of the word "essence".

on http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/mindbody.html it says:

" The essence of matter is nothing but to be extended in space, that is, to occupy a volume of space. The essence of mind is nothing but the activity of thinking. From this he concluded: Since matter and mind have differing essences, the mind is not the brain, for the brain, being made of matter, is a purely material entity, and mind is not material in nature.

Thus, the brain must be one thing and the mind must be another thing entirely. The mind is therefore a nonmaterial or nonphysical entity."

"The essence of mind is nothing but the activity of thinking" This seems to be a mis-translation for the word essence, if by essence we mean monad, for mind, being nonphysical, can not have a monad of its own, rather it is the monad of the brain.

I believe that Leibniz was in fact a dualist, but a dualist in the Platonic or Idealistic sense (Mind/,matter), not in the Cartesian sense of extended/nonextended.

In the Idealistic sense, mind creates and controls matter, so that Mind plays the brain like a vi9olin.

Thus Leibniz's gap is simply the cause/effect gap, if indeed we can refer to that as a gap at all..

-- Hguolcr (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: https://rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net

Hi Dr. Clough,

With in regards to your first query, I had undone your edit back in August of 2013, as it was unsourced (no reliable reference was attached to the material).

You are by all means allowed to add said material into the article again, provided that it does have a reliable published source.

In regards to your second query relating to Leibniz's gap – I have never edited said article, and so therefore don't believe I'll be able to assist you with that topic. You are also allowed to edit the article. If you wish, you can add material to that article (again, provided a reliable source is cited). If you need any assistance with editing an article, that I am able to help you out with.

Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 22:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello MelbourneStar:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you very much North!

Best wishes and have a happy Halloween, all the way from Australia! —MelbourneStar☠^{Happy Halloween!} 10:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks kindly, and have a g'day! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)