User talk:Simpleterms

Companies owned by David Tweed; and Suzanne Forster
	‡ Country Estate and Agency Company
	‡ National Exchange Corporation
	‡ Australian and New Zealand Exchange
	‡ National Share Purchasing Corporation Pty Ltd (NSPC)
	‡ Direct Share Purchasing Corporation Pty Ltd (DSPC)
	‡ Australian Share Purchasing Company Pty Ltd (ASPC)
	‡ Prudential Nominees
	‡ Colonial Capital Corporation Limited (in New Zealand)
	‡ Share Buying Group (SBG) - to be confirmed from ASIC
	‡ Hassle Free Share Sales Pty Ltd (HFSS)

Hi, could you please discuss some of the changes you are making to the David Tweed article on the talk page of that article? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Tweed[edit]

Please discuss your changes to this article on the talk page rather than doing wholesale changes. Gillyweed (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your objection to discussing your large changes to the article on the talk page? Gillyweed (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Resorted back to original indefinite block[edit]

Please see here for the reasoning. See the guide to appealing blocks if you wish to make another request for unblocking. NJA (t/c) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to learn how to operate within Wikipedia's guidelines. When I first started editing I didn't believe I was compelled to respond to questions as to why I wanted specific changes made. I have now noted all changes I wish to be made and have the necessary back up reasons (in accordance with wiki standards) to support the required changes.

Decline reason:

I am not convinced that you have changed your attitude. As a sign of good faith, perhaps you could give (on this page) some examples of specific changes to articles which you feel should be made, along with the reliable independent sources (or "back up reasons" as you call them) to show us that you really understand it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:38, 2 May 2010 (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.

I have attempted to contact the original blocking admin, but to no avail. I have little faith in making this unblock request, but after two e-mails to me from the user goading me to action, I am putting this back into admins hands (other than mine) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NJA sometimes has several days away from Wikipedia - if there is no response from NJA in 2 weeks, I will look at this again and make a decision, unless someone else has already done so by then -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As BWilkins asked 2 weeks ago, I will make a decision now, rather than waiting for another 2 weeks - which would keep you waiting for a month. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example of one of the changes I would like to see made is shown below:

I would like to see the reference to Suzanne Forster and her companies, Share Buying Group and Hassle Free Share Sales Pty Ltd deleted from this page. The addition of external third parties not affiliated with David Tweed should not be encouraged. If Suzanne Forster is a person of such interest she should have her own page created. The information contained gives the impression that David Tweed and Suzanne Forster own all companies listed. I am not sure how this change should be noted when/if it is made. Advice in this area would be appreciated as my reason seems too long winded.

Simpleterms (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example:

Current Opening Paragraph:

"David Tweed is an Australian businessman who conducts a business of offering to buy shares at either below market value, or at a price that is above market value but via installments. Paying in installments can disadvantage the seller due to the time value of money. Tweed's business practices are controversial in some quarters and have attracted criticism from the media."

I would like to see the paragraph changed to:

"David Tweed is an Australian businessman who conducts a business of offering to buy shares at either below market value, or at a price that is above market value but via installments. Paying in installments can disadvantage the seller due to the time value of money. Tweed's business practices have attracted criticism from the media. Such a business is legal in Australia provided that it complies with relevant Government regulations."

The term "are controversial in some quarters and" should be removed. These are Weasel Words – Vague Generalization - No evidence provided to back up this statement. This term is Not Neutral Point Of View (NNPOV) - Should be deleted.

Adding the last line "Such a business is legal in Australia provided that it complies with relevant Government regulations." presents an unbiased view whilst being 100% accurate. Without this addition the editor is ignoring NPOV by only presenting a biased storyline.

Simpleterms (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you do not provide any reliable independent sources to verify the information given here - or to refute the information currently in the article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there are not any reliable independent sources used to verify the statements previously offered here either. Simpleterms (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to email[edit]

Thank you for your recent email, which I will respond to here.

I have reviewed your unblock request above and declined it. You now have three options:

Place another unblock request ({{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}}) on this page. Should you do this, I will not deal with it (as I have already declined a request), but leave it to another admin to review.
Alternatively, you can mail your unblock request to unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org
Indefinite blocks may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Banned users should not create new accounts, or sockpuppets to file an appeal. Rather, they should contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee via email at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org to have their case reviewed.

Barring any very compellng reason, I do not intend on responding any further on this matter (please do not email me again - anything that you want to say can be said here) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked because of a violation to the three revert rule and in accordance with Wikipedia's ruling on this matter I put forward the folllowing - The three-revert rule "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule:

Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates Biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."

Whatever happened to "Don't bite the newbie???" Simpleterms (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The decision is sound in my opinion. You've been told about this by me and others before, thus the newb factor has worn off. You may wish to appeal to the address provided above. Also sorry for the delay, just very busy lately. NJA (t/c) 07:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]