User talk:B20097

Welcome!
Hello, B20097, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cate McGregor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Courier Mail. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Trobe University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Same-sex. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Royal Children's Hospital
Your edits had absolutely nothing to do with the hospital: there are many political arguments in the health field, but they don't belong in each and every hospital article just because an editor thinks it's a gr8 place to try to coatrack on their agenda. We have more than enough articles on transgender issues if you want to go push your POV there.

For what it's worth, I find your edit history extremely suspicious. You pretty clearly have some sort of affiliation with the Australian Christian Lobby, and you're editing areas in which that gives you a massive conflict-of-interest. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there The Drover&#39;s Wife, thanks for your comments on this article. The same user has engaged in edit warring on the Safe Schools Coalition Australia page, intent on retaining content that lacks context and makes the article less readable. Details are on Talk:Safe Schools Coalition Australia. If you are able, I would welcome any contribution you could offer to assist in dispute resolution. Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Morrison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Advertiser. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Encouragement
I would like to encourage you to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Its a great cause. What I hate to see happen is when people spend their time writing to much detail and in the years following all that work gets removed because its trivia. Trivia gets in the way of a good read. The Safe Schools Coalition Australia is a charity. It isn't a movie or video game for which there is a large interest in its reception and critique. The article is already mostly about the controversy. Too much commentary about how people feel about this (or any topic of any article) isn't appropriate here. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It may bring solace expressing yourself at online forums such as Whirlpool instead. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Your edits...
...are adding a nice balance to a lot of articles. I edit articles without agenda, and appreciate the content you are adding. There are too many people who want to protect the image of an organization that they have personal feelings about, your edits bring back the neutrality that these articles require. Thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Hello, I'm Donner60. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Safe Schools Coalition Australia— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please
You must desist immediately from abusing Wikipedia. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion continues at:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#WP:NOT  B20097 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Organizations that support husband-wife marriage has been nominated for discussion
Category:Organizations that support husband-wife marriage, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your behavior on Talk:Same-sex marriage
Your reproduction of (visual) material from my user page is highly unorthodox. I don't think I've ever seen a user reproduce an image from another user's user page on an article talk page before. I find your doing so, as if there were something inherently offensive or disqualifying about a proper Wikimedia Commons image, both homophobic and personally harassing. You've been escalating your various attacks against me, making them increasingly pointed and specific, culminating now in the reproduction of this image. This needs to stop. Keep your discussion textual and relevant. I expect you to engage the discussion in good faith, avoiding behavior that has been found homophobic and harassing. Please do not restore the image to your comment. I would much rather not have to pursue this matter further. Thank you. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion is located here and here. The image is located here.  B20097 (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for updates
Hi Thanks for the updates for the No Campaign. just wondering are you voting No like the majority. Torygreen84 (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey
Hi User:B20097,

I think many of your contributions to Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey are being disruptive. I reckon you are giving undue weight to particular perspectives, including with the addition of quotes and with sensationalised language from certain media sources. This is against WP policies. User:Cjhard, User:Whats new? and myself, amongst others, are spending most of our editing either removing, moderating or clarifying your contributions to be more neutral. A few times is forgivable, but it seems to be continuous.

Do you think this is the case, or do you have a different take on it?

Thanks. Boneymau (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm in almost complete agreement with you, . It's obviously the case that has an issue with maintaining a neutral point of view in articles. (Safe Schools Coalition Australia is an example of this, add it to your watchlist if you have the time to fix it.) However, I don't think it rises to the level of disruption. B20097 adds a lot of content and yes, too much of it is trivial and biased, so it's up to the rest of the community to improve upon it. Dealing with editors with neutrality issues in US politics articles makes me truly appreciate one thing about B20097: zero edit-warring. When their contributions are criticised, reverted, or changed, they just accept it and keep adding more content. So yeah, I agree with the censure for biased editing, but I wouldn't say the edits are disruptive as such, or worth some sort of administrative intervention. Cjhard (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Cjhard: Thank you.
 * Boneymau: Anyone can write (or make changes to) Wikipedia articles providing they comply with WP:PG. SSM is a very controversial issue, (with Federal Parliament having unsuccessfully 'grappled' with it 18? times), which evokes (what each side claim are) justified positions / responses.     B20097 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * B20097, I'm really just asking you to take a moment to genuinely reflect on whether you are complying with the WP:PG of WP:NPOV, given others (not just me) consider you are not. And, if after that reflection you can see what they are getting at, to moderate your editing behaviour a little. I don't think that's unreasonable.Boneymau (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Conservapedia migration Award
_________________

The background to this is located here. B20097 (talk)

Biased editing
Hello, I am concerned that you are repeatedly included biased material in articles. Using your recent edits to the Sexual orientation and the Australian Defence Force article as an example, I have the following concerns:
 * In this edit you added a quote from some guy's personal blog. The vague wording ("The amount of time and money put into these activities have raised concerns") did not make it clear that this is one person's views. Moreover, it is not clear why Mr Smith's views on his personal blog are worth inserting in the article.
 * - Only added as (1) other citations are pay-walled and (2) 95%? of it is sourced verbatim from the ADF. In future will not use.


 * In this edit you added some views by MP Andrew Hastie. Again, the text was so vague it's impossible to know what he's talking about. More seriously, the fact that he's a social conservative [* WP:OR ?*] was left out. Why these views matter (is this WP:NOTNEWS or a significant intervention?), differing views, etc, were also not included. You also got the details of his Army career wrong - he was an officer in the SAS, not its [* I did not say that *] commander.
 * - There are 2,030 Google 'results' for "SAS Commander Andrew Hastie" - including the one cited.  I will call him "former Australian Army officer and politician".
 * - I prefer more concise wording - allowing the readers consider for themselves using the provided cites.
 * - I will rewrite the entry and elaborate on what Hastie said. Feel free to modify / add "differing views, etc"
 * Aside from the relevance of this not being clear (the article shouldn't and doesn't need to cover random news stories or the views of semi-random people given that there are references covering these issues thematically), you left out the range of views noted in the news story to cherry pick only Hastie's view. Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In this article you added the rather tabloid factoid about how much the ADF has spent on sex change and breast enhancement surgery. The source article is anything but tabloid, and notes repeatedly that this is a tiny proportion of the military's health expenditure. [* relevance? *] It also notes that the personnel were entitled to this treatment as part of their service contract, with the actual support being similar what they would have received through Medicare had they been civilians. You chose not to include this material, which seems to me [* a POV - fine add it. *] to be much more useful to the article.
 * - The issues raised was breast enhancement in conjunction with MF sex reassignment surgery, financed by ADF. Refer >MF sex reassignment, breast enhancement
 * - You have objected to the term, "it was reported". I note that wording is used, "about 57,700" times in Wikipedia.
 * - OK. I will leave all out.


 * A common theme in the above is adding random news stories and stuff you've found on blogs without reflecting on whether they are actually significant or putting them in context.
 * - a POV.

You have engaged in similar patterns of editing across multiple articles now. Given that you are also capable of making good edits, [* thank you *] I think that you're letting yourself, and Wikipedia's readers, down with stuff like this. You will also likely end up being blocked if it continues given the number of complaints you're accumulating (such as those above). I would encourage your to read, or re-read, WP:NPOV and take the time to develop well-rounded material. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - With respect, suggest you examine the "complaints you're accumulating (such as those above)". Suggest in terms of NPOV it is very black pots (here and here) calling kettles black.  I have made 1,351 edits.  You complain about 4 easily-resolved issues.   Also with respect, rather than using words like "crap" and threatening to unilaterally ban, suggest cooperation and collaboration to produce a better NPOV Wikipedia.  I am happy to do that. Regards  B20097 (talk)
 * Please do not edit other editor's talk page posts - I did not write that with caveats in it. Please see WP:TPO. You may want to re-read my post BTW: I was using these as examples of long-running problems with your editing, with editors above raising similar concerns. Nick-D (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you need more evidence that this user is a paid operative? Have you seen any prominent Australian editors who have suggested that propaganda stay in our articles? - Shiftchange (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 'A paid operative' is a ludicrous assertion. I am absolutely not paid by anybody. B20097 (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Your recent editing history at Sexual orientation and the Australian Defence Force shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Smile! ;)
 Hello B20097, Jono52795 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Have a gay Christmas B2!

Yet another personal attack
B20097 is "obviously" a "paid", "sockpuppet", "bias"ed, "propaganda"ist. B20097 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Martyn Iles


The article Martyn Iles has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No significant coverage in independent sources whatsoever. Only mentioned incidentally in a couple of articles, and no news hits for his name at all through Factiva."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kb.au (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Martyn Iles for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martyn Iles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Martyn Iles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Australian Christian Lobby logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Australian Christian Lobby logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:StJudesexterior.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:StJudesexterior.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:St Judes looking east.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:St Judes looking east.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:StJudes looking west.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:StJudes looking west.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)