User talk:123.243.76.19

March 2012
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't the place to push innuendo or pursue your political interests. Please see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your automatic assumption that I am pursuing a political interest is completely unsubstantiated and I think indicates a probable bias on your behalf. The unfounded allegation is offensive.  My only political affiliation or interest is as a citizen dependent that provision of it's services are made independently and in the public interest first.  Carr resigned government at a time when he was under heavy public criticism (e.g. for poor transport services) and the coming election looked unwinnable with him as leader. Absolutely none of that huge amount of public criticism has remained in his public record on Wikipedia.  What does remain now appears as pure advocacy, progaganda, promotion and political advertising. Hardly neutral, and smacking of all the issues "Wikipedia isn't the place for" on WP:SOAPBOX.  Even if I were to say it quacks, has feathers and swims in water and you assume it's a duck, that's up to you.  Whether it's a duck or not, it's not innuendo just for the fact that I state what is known and don't state whether or not it's a duck.  It's fair that I imply if you're not a duck, then it's not a good idea to quack, wear feathers and swim in water when you're warned by independent regulators, etc.  If you do so anyway (while getting paid $500,000 to swim with ducks and $130,000 not to be a duck at the same time), people still have the right to say "look he quacks, wears feathers and swims with ducks".  Banning someone for providing neutral, well sourced statements of fact and wholesale deletion of self-evident corrections, accurate source references, etc. seems far more like pushing an agenda and pursuing a political interest. User:123.243.76.19

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked for adding basically the same innuendo and smears to the Bob Carr article as soon as the previous block expired in clear breach of the core policy WP:BLP, not to mention WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. This block duration is set at one month in recognition of the fact that any registered accounts would be blocked for an indefinite period for such conduct. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please provide explanation and substantial justification of your claims of innuendo, breach of WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH and/or WP:UNDUE. Also for the record, could you please clarify whether you have any political, commercial, personal or employment affiliation with subjects referenced ?

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing [mailto:unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org unblock-en-l], but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate content WP:UNDUE. College of scholarly discourse & mentoring?  Might look like black-bagging & 'guy-with-the-gun' consensus. 121.91.89.172 (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi BWilkins,

I appreciate the further input.

My query to Nick-D about possible sock-puppetry is withdrawn.

I was surprised that Nick-D's original block was applied with no information apart from a WP:BLP link in the template User_talk:123.243.76.19&oldid=482155204.

Without knowing further what his actual concern(s) were, it was difficult to know how to address them. As a new user and a first incident, to be blocked without discussion, explanation, warning or advice, I felt this wasn't particularly an act of good faith. Nevertheless, I was somewhat hasty to jump to a query of sock-puppetry against Nick-D, and he should have still received my assumption of good faith regardless.

The next day, this hint was posted - "Wikipedia isn't the place to push innuendo or pursue your political interests. Please see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BLP".

Queries in my unblock request weren't answered and I received no further information or discussion regarding: (1) whether I had correctly interpreted the blocking admin's concern. (2) opinion on my proposal for correction.

On that basis, I added content which I'd attempted to substantially modify to address the concern as perceived. I was then reblocked for a month (and told it deserved indef block). I had agreed there was a concern with the initial content, and this was acknowledged by TnxMn301. There was no view provided on the modified content, including whether it was "basically the same" as asserted. I'm not sure whether I was expected to assume his silence as ongoing objection. If the content had been disagreed between two editors, a simple revert would have been enough to indicate that consensus wasn't established and discussion could have moved politely to Talk:Bob_Carr for resolution, or seeking others opinions. Instead, blocks were always applied before discussion. This was and remained my contention.

I propose that we deescalate this and seek community consensus on the content and how to resolve the WP:UNDUE issue via Talk:Bob_Carr. I would appreciate if you may provide positive confirmation, or state your objection.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Trailblazer Project has been reverted. Your edit here to Trailblazer Project 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=hqN59beaFMI) 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. a sound or video file) 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) 23:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.