|This is MelbourneStar's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to MelbourneStar.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19|
|Welcome to my talk page!
|This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.|
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)
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
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
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.
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)