User talk:Aussie patriot

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.

March 2021
Hello, I'm Jack Frost. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Reclaim Australia, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jack Frost (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Reclaim Australia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Please do not remove contents that are referenced. SunDawn (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I did give a valid reason. I am an organiser and a former spokesman for the group these leftists are lying about & smearing. Aussie patriot (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't work like that. Every change in Wikipedia should be able to be verified WP:V and not originating from original research WP:NOR. What you are doing is not supporting the movement at all. SunDawn (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Reclaim Australia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DoebLoggs (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Reclaim Australia. DoebLoggs (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does work like that actually, the author has stated that the group Reclaim Australia is associated with neo Nazi, far right, hate groups. The citation provided for this lie is to a book that has nothing to do with Reclaim Australia. The original author is making unsubstantiated claims and using extremely unreliable biased sources as a lame citation knowing full well that Wikipedia’s algorithms only pick up on a source or citation but not the relevance. Aussie patriot (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

What an absolute bunch of muppets you tears are. Aussie patriot (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
If you are "a Reclaim organiser" then you are not permitted to edit the Reclaim Australia article due to your conflict of interest, please read WP:CONFLICT. You are allowed to suggest changes at talk, here: Talk:Reclaim Australia, but you should not be editing the article. Bacondrum 10:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

And who are you? I dare say every person who has edited this page has a “conflict of interest” I’ve read the conflict of interest guidelines and I am editing these outright lies on behalf of the 15,000 people from all ethnicities that attended these rallies. There is NO evidence that neo-nazis are associated with us and because I am one of the former admins and speakers I know this for a fact! Therefor I am in a good position to call out these editors for slandering myself and numerous others. Aussie patriot (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Reclaim Australia, you may be blocked from editing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing at Reclaim Australia with repeated removals of sourced content as well as of the reliable sources themselves. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I noticed that in this edit to Reclaim Australia, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Reclaim Australia. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Favonian (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks for your reply, Im very new to Wikipedia so don’t understand some of the rules and policies surrounding what can and can’t be published. It seems you are willing to allow people to slander people on your website providing they provide a source to another article backs up their slander. The source material I removed was done because it is not relevant to what was written. The sourced material was written by left wing activists and a Muslim so therefor is extremely subjective and not based on truth and also in violation of your conflict of interest policy. As for me being an organiser and therefor subject to WP:COI this from my understanding is about conflict of interest. Firstly Im not sure how much you know about this actual movement but as you can see by the amount of highly charged verses and edits in the article it is clear that the person who wrote these defamatory lies also has a severe conflict of interest, in fact it is probable that they were part of the counter protests that were set up in retaliation going by some of the language used it mimics a website called ‘Slack Bastard’ which is a far left wing blog. There are many things written which are false and outright slanderous on this page but my main objection is to the Nazi and hate group slurs. I’ve clearly explained why these are untrue and pointed out the obvious distinction that was written about Danny Nalliah being one of the speakers and his church being predominately black people so therefor it’s ridiculous to suggest that Reclaim was affiliated with neo-nazis and yet you continue to ban me from editing and uphold lies and slander on your site which in turn affects numerous people such as myself with regards to employment prospects due to far leftwing abuse and slander of people in a movement whose arguments they couldn’t refute without using biased sources and downright lies on your site. It is for this reason if you continue to uphold these falsehoods on your page I will seek legal advice and will be taking this to court. Aussie patriot (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to pursue legal action. However, as per WP:NLT, you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia, even this talk page, until your legal action is resolved or until you unconditionally withdraw your legal threats. As to the rest, I'm simply not interested. You are blocked for removing sourced content, and additionally have been violating WP:COI. That and only that is relevant to your block. --Yamla (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re actually pretty stupid aren’t you! This is an extract from your own policies, “This page in a nutshell: If you post a legal threat on Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked. “A polite report of a legal problem, such as defamation or copyright infringement, is not a threat and will be acted on quickly.“ so by me politely telling you that if you continue to uphold lies and falsehoods that do indeed defame several people I know the only response you could come up with is, “Im not interested!” Well you soon will be asshole. Aussie patriot (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will seek legal advice and will be taking this to court This is a very clear legal threat. You have been rightly blocked, and you are the only one whitewashing (aka lying about) your own behaviour. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 23:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)