User talk:MelbourneStar

Contents

Thanks for being nice about it man, I appreciate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cucklord666 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Faggin edit

Hello, MelbourneStar. You have new messages at Robertthompson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you, just trying to get the hang of things. I appreciate your feedback.

Green Brigade

I wish to make amendments to the green brigade wiki page. Some of the information on the page is both in accurate and out of date.

Blacklist

Here is an article outlining the popular theory from TV Guide:

http://www.tvguide.com/news/the-blacklist-red-reddington-liz-mom-mother-theory-katarina/

Either way though, the facts are not correct in the article. Even if you do not wish to put the theory up there, which has all but been confirmed at this point, the previous version stated something along the lines that "Red admits he is her father." In point of fact he admits only that "She is his daughter", which of course is a big difference given that he is actually her mother. I would at least let those changes stand if you do not wish to put all the changes in. I appreciate the feedback, hope that helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.160.18 (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@144.121.160.18: Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia.

In the source you've provided, could you please indicate to me where it explicitly states that Red is Liz's father? regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

From the original wiki article: "Red is confirmed as Liz's father in "Dr. Adrian Shaw: Conclusion."

and: "In "Dr. Adrian Shaw: Conclusion", while Red is being held captive and threatened by Alexander Kirk, Red admits that he is in fact Elizabeth Keene's father."

In point of fact he does not admit he is her father, rather in that episode he is asked, "Is masha your daughter." To which he replies in the affirmative. Those words were very deliberately used as most people will draw the conclusion that he is her father. However, all the other evidence points towards Reddington actually being Katarina--Liz's MOTHER, having assumed the real Red's identity in an effort to protect Liz/Masha from her enemies. Again, it's a theory, alebit a correct one, that Reddington is actually Katarina, but if you don't want to put that in I understand. I would, however, make it clear that there is ambiguity over whether or not he admitted to being her father to leave open the possibility (which will be revealed as the show progresses). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.160.18 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Signature

MelbourneStar How'd you get your signature to look like that? You clearly know a whole lot more about Wikipedia and Users trends than I do ... I want to learn more teach me! You like my signature down below? ---WeLcOmEtOtHenEwMiLlEnIuM _(Talk) 12:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Welcometothenewmillenium: thanks for the compliments. I know probably as much or as little about user trends as you do, might I say. I just came up with my username colours by trying out different things with my username, and experimenting with the code. You've got a wonderful signature, if I may say so. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia edits

Dear MelbourneStar, In regards to the recent reversal of my contributions to the Liberal Party of Australia page in the ideology and political position fields, I put those edits in to inform the public on what the party was about and where it stands. Intentionally leaving those fields blank, whether intentionally or not, is like removing the bus stop signs or any other indication of a bus stop along a bus route and expecting the driver to know where to stop. Quite frankly, I find that highly unreasonable and potentially misleading. I hope you can understand where I am coming from. User:Futuramaking2999.

@Futuramaking2999: welcome to Wikipedia. Whether I agree with you or not regarding the ideological position of the party, is not really relevant, because this is about consensus. The ideological position of the Liberal Party, and indeed the Labor Party, has been widely discussed across both articles' talk pages. Currently, consensus among the community is that ideologies be left blank, as to avoid conjecture. By conjecture, I'm referring to the fact that both parties encompass a lot of political terrain from the right all the way to the left, and it is nowadays difficult to determine where parties stand ideologically (this is also reflected in reliable sources which are unable to form a uniform ideology for either party).

If you really want ideologies to be present, you will need to bring about a discussion on the article's talk page – here – gain the community's agreement, and then proceed with making such changes. Until then, the ideological field will be left intentionally blank. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

RE:DELETION OF ARTICLE ON LATEEF BAKARE

I curated an article on Lateef Akande Bakare and it was flagged for deletion even while I was still working on the said article.The character in focus is a well-known accountant in Nigeria but unfortunately most of the references that can be cited on him are not notable to the standard of Wikipedia.In fact some of the interviews he granted some newspapers some years back are not searchable again online because links to them are not available...I had an opportunity of interviewing this fellow in 2008 in the course of my working as a journalist here in Nigeria.The interview was published both online and offline but unfortunately,the online edition is not available again.I have decided to create an article on him because much of the information about him is not online,hence it may be difficult for future generation to know about this man who has done much for humanity.I am of the view that if the article is allowed to go live,many persons/Wikipedia users who are familiar with him my cite some acceptable references about him.In this regard,I want to suggest that the notice of deletion placed on the article should be removed and allowed to be published immediately,particularly when I have supplied some references on the article that substantially meet the Wikipedia standard. Instinct71 (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Instinct71: the article in question is subject to a deletion discussion, as can be viewed here. Discretion as to whether or not to continue to pursue this deletion discussion lies with the user who initiated it, user Kleuske. Should they have seen the work that you've done to the article since the notice was placed, they may decide to withdraw the deletion discussion should they see fit to do so; otherwise, if they still have reservations, the deletion discussion will continue and last over a period of a week, where other editors will participate and discuss through means of a "Keep - for X, Y, Z reasons" or "Delete - for X, Y, Z reasons". You are more than welcome to participate in the discussion. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I still don't see "significant coverage by independent, reliable souces". I do see a lot of unsouced claims. I did a google search for sources and came up short. Hence I will let the AfD run its course. Kleuske (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I will be very glad if you contribute more on the deletion of article on Lateef Bakare.This is the 3rd day of the notice and seems no much contribution has been made by editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instinct71 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Re:Deletion of article on Lateef Bakare

As I said earlier,the article was flagged for deletion when I had not made any reference to it.Since the notice was given,I have made about 11 additions to the article.So by all respects,this is significant.I hold an opinion that more,significant and decent contribution may be generated on the article if ti is published so that some persons outside this platform who may have some things to add are given the opportunity.Instinct71 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)