User talk:203.221.204.191: Difference between revisions
Objective treatment of public information is not disruptive - deleting my content is. Take it up in the Talk page if you want it removed. |
→Final warning re. Bill Shorten: new section Tags: contentious topics alert 2017 wikitext editor |
||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
[[User:MelbourneStar]], I reject your implication that my edits are disruptive. I have made legitimate, evidence-based and objective contributions which keep being deleted by *{{vandal|Bilby}}, who has overruled several discussions over a period of months on the page concerned, despite a clear majority of people on the [[Bill Shorten]] talk page who want an objectively-written section included to this effect, in the same format it has been presented for numerous others e.g. [[Harvey Weinstein]], [[Kevin Spacey]], fellow Australians [[Don Burke]], [[Geoffery Rush]], and fellow politicians [[Al Franken]], [[Donald Trump]], [[Bill Clinton]], [[Joe Biden]]. You don't get more high-profile than these people, and yet they all have a relevant section title, regardless of whether the case proceeded. It is well established that cases are by their nature very difficult to achieve conviction, so many incidents go unreported, or are unsuccessful through investigation or trail, and I'd encourage you to read more about it: <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault#Australia</ref>. It is for this reason that *{{vandal|Bilby}}'s dismissal on the relevance of including this content that is incredibly problematic and illustrates a disregard for victims of sexual assault, his fellow contributors, and Wikipedia's own guidelines. Given the discussions that have already taken place on the Talk page, and the numerous disruptive deletions by *{{vandal|Bilby}}, the onus is on him to provide a reason this content should be wholesale deleted, and gain consensus for it on the talk page. Wikipedia remains a place for information, not for hiding it - this is publicly accessible information, reported by legitimate news sources, was on the front page of national papers, and *{{vandal|Bilby}}'s only reasoning is that it's insignificant? Get a grip, the disruptive user is *{{vandal|Bilby}} and I'd suggest you don't waste much more of your time trying to cover up rape allegations with him [[WP:3RR|edit warring]], we've all got better things to be doing, myself included. You can't sweep public information under the rug in perpetuity, as the Talk page demonstrates, people will find its way on to this page and you'll just be wasting your time. |
[[User:MelbourneStar]], I reject your implication that my edits are disruptive. I have made legitimate, evidence-based and objective contributions which keep being deleted by *{{vandal|Bilby}}, who has overruled several discussions over a period of months on the page concerned, despite a clear majority of people on the [[Bill Shorten]] talk page who want an objectively-written section included to this effect, in the same format it has been presented for numerous others e.g. [[Harvey Weinstein]], [[Kevin Spacey]], fellow Australians [[Don Burke]], [[Geoffery Rush]], and fellow politicians [[Al Franken]], [[Donald Trump]], [[Bill Clinton]], [[Joe Biden]]. You don't get more high-profile than these people, and yet they all have a relevant section title, regardless of whether the case proceeded. It is well established that cases are by their nature very difficult to achieve conviction, so many incidents go unreported, or are unsuccessful through investigation or trail, and I'd encourage you to read more about it: <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault#Australia</ref>. It is for this reason that *{{vandal|Bilby}}'s dismissal on the relevance of including this content that is incredibly problematic and illustrates a disregard for victims of sexual assault, his fellow contributors, and Wikipedia's own guidelines. Given the discussions that have already taken place on the Talk page, and the numerous disruptive deletions by *{{vandal|Bilby}}, the onus is on him to provide a reason this content should be wholesale deleted, and gain consensus for it on the talk page. Wikipedia remains a place for information, not for hiding it - this is publicly accessible information, reported by legitimate news sources, was on the front page of national papers, and *{{vandal|Bilby}}'s only reasoning is that it's insignificant? Get a grip, the disruptive user is *{{vandal|Bilby}} and I'd suggest you don't waste much more of your time trying to cover up rape allegations with him [[WP:3RR|edit warring]], we've all got better things to be doing, myself included. You can't sweep public information under the rug in perpetuity, as the Talk page demonstrates, people will find its way on to this page and you'll just be wasting your time. |
||
== Final warning re. [[Bill Shorten]] == |
|||
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.'' |
|||
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[WP:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[WP:AC/DS#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic. |
|||
For additional information, please see the [[WP:AC/DS#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[WP:ArbCom|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons|here]]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
|||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> |
|||
* [[WP:ONUS|The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.]] |
|||
* [[WP:BLP|Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.]] |
|||
If you continue to add disputed content to the article [[Bill Shorten]], you will be reported at [[WP:ANEW]] and likely blocked. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 02:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 02:58, 5 May 2019
Welcome!
|
April 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Bill Shorten has been reverted.
Your edit here to Bill Shorten 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=XFTbotLPZfg) 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) 23:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bill Shorten, you may be blocked from editing. Stop edit warring. You want to add the content in? the onus is on you to discuss it on the talk page, and gain consensus for it. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time, including yours. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
User:MelbourneStar, I reject your implication that my edits are disruptive. I have made legitimate, evidence-based and objective contributions which keep being deleted by *Bilby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has overruled several discussions over a period of months on the page concerned, despite a clear majority of people on the Bill Shorten talk page who want an objectively-written section included to this effect, in the same format it has been presented for numerous others e.g. Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, fellow Australians Don Burke, Geoffery Rush, and fellow politicians Al Franken, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden. You don't get more high-profile than these people, and yet they all have a relevant section title, regardless of whether the case proceeded. It is well established that cases are by their nature very difficult to achieve conviction, so many incidents go unreported, or are unsuccessful through investigation or trail, and I'd encourage you to read more about it: [1]. It is for this reason that *Bilby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s dismissal on the relevance of including this content that is incredibly problematic and illustrates a disregard for victims of sexual assault, his fellow contributors, and Wikipedia's own guidelines. Given the discussions that have already taken place on the Talk page, and the numerous disruptive deletions by *Bilby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the onus is on him to provide a reason this content should be wholesale deleted, and gain consensus for it on the talk page. Wikipedia remains a place for information, not for hiding it - this is publicly accessible information, reported by legitimate news sources, was on the front page of national papers, and *Bilby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s only reasoning is that it's insignificant? Get a grip, the disruptive user is *Bilby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I'd suggest you don't waste much more of your time trying to cover up rape allegations with him edit warring, we've all got better things to be doing, myself included. You can't sweep public information under the rug in perpetuity, as the Talk page demonstrates, people will find its way on to this page and you'll just be wasting your time.
Final warning re. Bill Shorten
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
- The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
- Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
If you continue to add disputed content to the article Bill Shorten, you will be reported at WP:ANEW and likely blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)