Hi ShootingStar2000! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Blaze The Wolf (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ShootingStar2000 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Pat Mesiti has been reverted.
Your edit here to Pat Mesiti was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGSr2f3bLsE) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks XLinkBot , i'm just getting started so guidance much appreciated ShootingStar2000 (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Pat Mesiti have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.  
Your edit here to Pat Mesiti was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvcxXH94Wng, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvcxXH94Wng, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2xUEmQUuSk) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks XLinkBot , i'm just getting started so guidance much appreciated ShootingStar2000 (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Eternity (newspaper). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Eternity (newspaper). StAnselm (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is actually firstly an overreaching of an administrative powers in order to intimidate another user and secondly not the due process set out by Wikipedia to resolve different perspectives of users. This user has provided valid and relevant content. Please do not continue to intimidate another user in this manner and it is indicating confirmation biasShootingStar2000 (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is a last resort. But I have tried engaging you both here and on the article talk page, and you are still adding in those unsourced claims. So just stop. StAnselm (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claims were references by subject's own work which indicated they were accepting to be identified as a conservative and not a fundamentalist: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/sydney-s-conservative-christians-are-not-fundamentalist-20211005-p58xc8.html "Sydney is the home of strongly conservative Christian movements – including Sydney’s distinctive Anglicans, three conservative Catholic dioceses and an ever-growing Pentecostal presence, spearheaded by Hillsong"

Hence the reference as a conservative is valid. If you believe the reference is not factually correct of invalid, you need to clearly state why, or provide support in identifying another reference. Threatening and intimidating another user is unacceptable conduct. ShootingStar2000 (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should have been saying this on the article talk page - it should not have taken a threat of blocking to draw you into a discussion. But in fact, neither the quote you provide nor the article you cite is saying that Sandeman himself is "conservative". So the fact remains that you have still been added unsourced content to the article. You have been warned. StAnselm (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further there was a significant amount of factually incorrect and out off date content on this page, instead of threatening another user, you should actually be thanking them for their positive and helpful contributions to the Wikipedia community. A reflection on your epistemological and ontological worldviews may cause reconsideration of being punitive to another Wilkipedia contributor ShootingStar2000 (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Request St to withdraw threat of block as the justification noted by St to block is not consistent with common causes of blocking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:I_have_been_blocked ShootingStar2000 (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed ShootingStar2000 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ShootingStar2000,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Phil Dooley for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, replied on your talk ShootingStar2000 (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ShootingStar2000,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Tim Hall (pastor) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ShootingStar2000 (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ShootingStar2000,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Alun Davies (pastor) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ShootingStar2000 (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ShootingStar2000,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Wayne Alcorn for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ShootingStar2000 (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ShootingStar2000,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Keith Ainge for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ShootingStar2000 (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Danny Guglielmucci requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —Mainframe98 _talk 10:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ShootingStar2000 (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the socking, your edits have been very disruptive. You have made many edits to existing articles that had to be reverted, and you have created multiple articles that are garbage. Some had nothing in them except the name of the subject, and others had one sentence saying something like "so-and-so is a pastor". All of those articles have been deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ShootingStar2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi Bbb23, I think I could improve page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Christian_Churches . How I could do this is update recent doctrinal statements of the Australian Christian Churches that have occurred via credible cited sources. As per conversation with 331dot I think this can demonstrate a substantive contribution I can make. Thanks ShootingStar2000 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open request at a time, and since you've posted a number of other ones since this that weren't properly formatted, I will fix the most recent one so it can be considered. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{unblock|reason=my account is not a sockpuppet ShootingStar2000 (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi Sir Sputnik can you help me with unblocking my account?

I'm not yet been given guidance on next steps from Bbb23 on how to address issues raised.

Much appreciated ShootingStar2000 (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock-auto|2=[[Wikipedia:Autoblock|Autoblocked]] . The reason given for ShootingStar2000's block is: "[[WP:SOCK|Sock puppetry]]; disruptive editing to existing articles; disruptive creation of articles".|3=‪Bbb23‬|4=11758869}

Hi ‪Bbb23‬ could you please unblock. I'm learning to create page. Am definitely not a sock puppet account. ShootingStar2000 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ‪Bbb23‬

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ShootingStar2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

my account is not a Sock puppet account ShootingStar2000 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even if true, and I'm not convinced it is, this doesn't address your disruptive editing. Yamla (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks

Hi ‪Bbb23‬ and ‪Yamla‬ please give advice how blocking can be removed then please?

Much appreciated

ShootingStar2000 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ShootingStar2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

see previous talk comment. I just want to contribute. Thanks ShootingStar2000 (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been given a pathway to being unblocked below, in which you can demonstrate a substantive contribution you would make. If you are declining to take that path, please explicitly say so, but that will count against any unblock request you make unless you can otherwise demonstrate how you will contribute. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi 331dot I believe I can make substantive contribution to Australian contemporary church history. There is a considerable amount of scholary works that can be drawn upon. However there is considerable controversy and scandals that have occurred. Would like to better capture this important topic with credible citations and referencing and without bias.

Thanks ShootingStar2000 (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that you use the process below to demonstrate that substantive contribution you would make, or that you otherwise describe specifically what change you would make- and then make another unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi could you please unblock

{unblock|reason=as previously stated to two admins and appeal I feel the indefinite block was excessive.  Have been actively engaging and learning with other users to understand wikipedia guidelines better and where possible engaging with administrators before making changes. Thanks heaps ShootingStar2000 (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)}}.[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ShootingStar2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

as previously stated to two admins and appeal I feel the indefinite block was excessive. Have been actively engaging and learning with other users to understand wikipedia guidelines better and where possible engaging with administrators before making changes. ShootingStar2000 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Please only make one request at a time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

• Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
• Read our guide to improving articles.
• Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
• If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
  1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
  2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
     • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
     • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
     • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
     • do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
  3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
  4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
  5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
• Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
• When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
  • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. ? ShootingStar2000 (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

find an article to improve ShootingStar2000 (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try Wikipedia:Articles for improvement. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @primefac ShootingStar2000 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ShootingStar2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

my account is not a sockpuppetShootingStar2000 (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not a sufficient reason for unblock .. really, if it was, we might as well not have that policy. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi,

It's been over 12 months. I still feel the sock puppet accusation is unproven.

How about some festive cheer and unblock me?

Merry Christmas ShootingStar2000 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason=its been two years since i was blocked. I have bee learning with other users to understand wikipedia guidelines better and where possible engaging with administrators before making changes. Thankyou ShootingStar2000 (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]