User talk:Bermudaresident

Welcome!
Hello, Bermudaresident, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Bridget McKenzie did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Bridget McKenzie and the Sports Rorts
Wikipedia content is required to be reliably sourced. Making significant changes to the content without any changes to the existing sourcing is almost always going to be unacceptable. Can I also make a constructive suggestion. You have only edited pages related to this single topic, in a way that suggests you may have a conflict of interest. Whether you do or not, I recommend that you spread your wings a little, and look at some other articles, perhaps less political ones, to see if you can improve them. We are always in need of people who can fix vandalism and improve the wording of articles. Look at articles in other areas of interest to you. This way you will likely learn more about the way things are done here, and then more effectively tackle those political areas that concern you. New, enthusiastic editors are always welcome here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * RESPONSE I have made comments on this one topic because the existing text is false and politically biased. I have no conflict of interest, and do not support Bridget McKenzie's political party, but I oppose Wikipedia being used to spread political lies. I am not a resident of Australia and have never voted in any election there.I do have other interests and have edited for many years on none political matters using a different name. The existing text is not worthy of Wikipedia. signed Bermudaresident ))


 * Someone who has edited for many years would not make the mistakes you are making. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

More false statements which discredit Wikipedia for political reasons. I have not made any mistake. The basic fact is the allocation approved by the Minister gave greater preference to increasing community participation in sport, compared with the initial allocation by Sports Australia who seemed to give preference to projects which increased competitive performance. The result was more funds were allocated to less affluent electorates. The result was the opposite to the Labor Sports Rort, more money was allocated to electorates represented by Opposition members. As the Minister stated it was 'reverse pork barrelling.' A colour coded chart was produced in the Minister's Office to show Sports Australia there was nonpolitical bias in the approved grants.


 * You are editing like someone brand new to Wikipedia, who is choosing to ignore advice about sourcing, while making several other errors here on THIS page. I will treat any further such edits as vandalism, with a view to reporting you, something that is likely to get you blocked. If you really do have multiple accounts, you may well be guilty of sockpuppetry, another way of becoming blocked here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your obligation re having multiple accounts
If what you claim above about having another Wikipedia account is true, I must draw your attention to Wikipedia's requirement that you tell the world about your multiple accounts. This is thoroughly documented in Sock puppetry. Briefly, "An editor using multiple accounts...should, on each account's user page, list all the other accounts with an explanation of their purpose." You really need to do this before you do any more editing. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have read the Wikipedia requirement. I cancelled my earlier account after changing my internet provider due to an conflict when working in Afghanistan for the UN.


 * Then demonstrate you actually know something about correctly contributing to a Talk page. Right now there is no evidence of that. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yet more dishonesty from HiLo48 in an attempt to cover-up his political bias. For the past 60 years I have as volunteer been on national and international committees dealing with sports governance and regulations, while working as an international advisor. I fully support the Coalitions program objective of providing funds for sports to improve the fitness and wellbeing of the community, rather than funding programs to improve competitive success in sport. I fully support the Minister's approval for a disproportion of the funding to go to Labor marginal seats as the community is generally less affluent with a lower level of physical activity. Wikipedia should ban HiLo48 from editing.
 * Please at least try to demonstrate you actually know something about correctly contributing to a Talk page. Right now there is no evidence of that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

More dishonesty from HiLo49 in his pursuit of political bias. This is well illustrated by a simple example. The claim was a disproportionate amount went to Coalition held electorates, then states the amount approved was just over 1 million dollars. Even a simpleton would not claim less than 1% of the $102.5 million approved by the Minister disproportionate unless they meant it should be increased by reducing funds to Labor held electorates. HiLo48 should have no place in editing Wikipedia.
 * Another policy you clearly need to learn (despite your claim to "have edited for many years") is No personal attacks. To quote "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans." HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

More dishonesty. I corrected obvious false statements made for political purposes. The response was a personal attack on me with no attempt to justify the publication of the incorrect information. All I have been doing is to defend myself from the personal comments by HiLo48 I have been sanctioned for providing correct facts. The easily established fact is the Minister did not approve a disproportionate high leverl of funding to government held electorates. This is why the ANAO report did not make that allegation. HiLo48 could not prove any of my corrections was inaccurate. It is HiLo48 who should be disbarred from editing.

I have been blocked in a personal attack, after I objected to Wikipedia being used for a political attack on Australian senator. There was no 'Sports Rort'. As shown by the colour coded chart provided by one of her advisers to Sports Australia there was no bias towards Government held electorates. The final list approved by the Minister in accordance with the Program objectives gave preference to applications which brought 'Health advancement', in comparison with the initial Sports Australia list which incorrectly gave preference was for applications which resulted in better results in competitive sport. The objective of the Community Sport Infrastructure Program was to increase community health and wellbeing by encouraging people to be more active, especially the elderly. Senator Bridget McKenzie acted appropriately and there was no 'Sports Rort' or 'Pork barreling' as falsely claimed in the Wikipedia entry which I tried to edit. Blocking me from editing is a political move to prevent Wikipedia oly providing true facts.

May 2020
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:. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=   In all my edits of Bridget McKenzie I have only deleted phrase/sentences which are incorrect and replaced then with text based on evidence in either the ANAO report or that of the Secretary of Dept.of Prime Minister and Cabinet, plus public statements  made by Senator Bridget McKenzie. The evidence is the original entry on Bridget McKenzie was nothing more than a political attack on her, which should have not been in Wikipedia. For writing a correct entry into Wikipedia, I have been subjected to unfair personal allegations amnI have been personally attacked by attacked by HiLo48. In my considered opinion it is him rather than me who should be blocked from editing Wikipedia. It may be appropriate for me to bring to the attention of Senator Bridget McKenzie the misuse of Wikipedia to mount a political attack on her, and bring it to the attention of the Parliamentary Committee.

Your UTRS Account
You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB (owner / report) 06:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have been trying to resolve my unfair blocking by Nick-D for trying to edit a false personal attack on Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie which was made for immoral political reasons. In my opinion such politically biased personal attacks have absolutely no place in Wikipedia which like any encyclopedia should only contain independent documented facts. While I do not support the political vies of the Senator, I believe sports should be above politics, but in this case it was with obviously false content being inserted into Wikipedia. It is a possibility a case could be brought against Wikipedia for defamation with substantial damages awarded against it.
 * I've turned off talk page access per No legal threats Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)