User talk:MelbourneStar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Alt text
usercontribscountemaillogspage moves

Reverts to Australian Federal Election 2013[edit]

Hi there,

I have made some contributions to page talk here. Arguments are pretty straightforward.,_2013

Re: September 2014[edit]

Hello. I have received your message, and the reason the Record at TCA's portion of the One Direction article was removed was because it is deemed unnecessary. It is formally mentioned in the Awards and nominations that One Direction have won all the 19 nominees for the TCA (Teen Choice Awards). Furthermore, this portion of the article should be placed in the List of awards and nominations received by One Direction article, which I believe already exists.

Since you caught this removal, I ask that you consider this and that you should do the removal of the portion of the article with reasoning.





This is a response to your message to me at

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

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

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


"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 (talkcontribs) 05:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


This concerns your "Leibniz's gap" page at — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hguolcr (talkcontribs) 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 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: For personal messages use

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, —MelbourneStartalk 22:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Scentre Group and Westfield[edit]

Hi Melbourne Star,

Westfield is still the name of the shopping centres in Australia and New Zealand, however, they are all under the management of Scentre Group, since Westfield Group was turned into two separate companies in June of 2014. You can get more information about it here: [1]. Also, please note I'm only updating the company name not the name of the actual centres. I hope that helps to clear things up a bit.

Thanks, J at Westfield Labs — Preceding unsigned comment added by J at Westfield Labs (talkcontribs) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi J,
Thank you for responding to my message regarding this. The main issue is in regards to naming.
You've created an article, Scentre Group - listing shopping centres in Australia, still under the title of Westfield. They are still a Westfield centre, only that they are operated by another group. Furthermore, the Westfield Group may be defunct - but it shouldn't be renamed soley to Westfield Corp. as the WG has some 50 years of history, shopping centres in Australia are still Westfield centres.
Does that make sense? —MelbourneStartalk 23:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Melbourne Star,

Thanks for clarifying. I will make the title clearer for that page. According to the restructuring information, Westfield Corporation is handling the Westfield Centers in the US and England, while the centres in Australia and New Zealand fall under the new Scentre Group company. Does that make sense?

Thanks, J — Preceding unsigned comment added by J at Westfield Labs (talkcontribs) 23:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but it's difficult to make that distinction. The only alternative I see is retaining the current "Westfield Group" article - but splitting it in sections; ie:
  • Article: Westfield Group (or) Westfield (Retail): Shopping centres under the label of "Westfield" (as well as the history of the original company etc. And the mentioning of the new companies.
    • Section: Westfield Corporation: Handling Westfield centres in the US/UK
    • Section: Scentre Group: Handling Westfield centres in Aus/NZ
Any suggestions? —MelbourneStartalk 23:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Again,

I think we still need to have a page for Westfield Corporation and Scentre Group since they are linked to in individual Westfield centre pages. Maybe we still have a Westfield Group page (just not as long) with information directing them to Westfield Corporation and Scentre Group. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J at Westfield Labs (talkcontribs) 19:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, J at Westfield Labs — Preceding unsigned comment added by J at Westfield Labs (talkcontribs) 21:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Melbourne Star,

I've made the changes I suggested to the Westfield Group page. I think that should take care of the confusion mentioned above. I noticed that a redirect was done to the Scentre Group page. If you made this change, can you change it back so the information about Scentre Group will appear in Wikipedia?

Thanks for your help with this matter, J at Westfield Labs — Preceding unsigned comment added by J at Westfield Labs (talkcontribs) 18:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi J,
I still feel as though this matter is not as cut and dry as we take it to be. I'll be requesting for some community input, as it is quite complex. —MelbourneStartalk 22:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)