User talk:Chazzj

Three revert rule
Regarding the John Howard article, if you haven't already seen it, please read WP:3RR. Thanks. --Merbabu 10:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

John Howard
If you really want to know why your additions are removed, then look thru the welcome template above (try WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS for starters), or perhaps the quickest way to get an explanation would be to raise the issue on the article's talk page.--Merbabu 13:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree the facts are published and verifiable with the court number....have a good times legal searching Chazzj 09:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Kangaroo Court undos
Hi, I undid the addition of the "Prime Example" under Kangaroo Court because the criticism added doesn't belong here. Coughinink 03:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A prime example of a kangaroo court system is the Australian Federal Court system and institutionalised discrimination, encouraged and authorised by the president of the HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, John von Doussa.

well you have to do better than just "your" opinion .... Chazzj 09:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:EL
Can I suggest that you make yourself aware of why blogs, newsgroups, bbs and the like aren't consider, reliably sources (for a start) nor does Wikipedia like linking to them. You aren't making things helpful for yourself by engaging in what Wikipedia calls an edit war.  Shot info  10:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless you have evidence why a court number isnt reliable, you are blowing hot air and stop stalking me loser Chazzj 10:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This suggests that you haven't read the policies that Wikipedia takes very seriously. There is no court number, this is a blog.  And per Wikipedia policy it will be removed.  What you need to do is find a better location for your source.  Also, keep cool and please don't call people names.  You could be blocked for that.    Shot info  10:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK the next time there is a court number u had better keep away Chazzj 10:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We are all here to make Wikipedia a better place. I'm only trying to help you here.  If you don't want my help, hey, that's fine.   Shot info  10:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * well then lemme teach you something about discrimination Chazzj 10:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, if you don't follow policy you start to attract the below warnings...which could result in a blocking.  Shot info  10:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rambling again, mate, specify which part of the policy i have violated not just links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazzj (talk • contribs)

Chazz, I realise that you are new, but understand that Wikipedia has a very strict policy against personal attacks, incivility and edit warring, and you are engaged in all three of these behaviours. If you continue attacking people and edit warring, I will block you from editing without any further warnings. Please review some of the policies and guidelines linked in the welcome message at the top of this page. I recommend that you start with the civility policy, assume good faith, no personal attacks and the 3RR policy, edit warring and consensus. We are all willing to answer questions and help you as necessary, but I'm afraid if you continue with this behaviour, you will be blocked to prevent any further disruption to the project. Wikipedia operates on a foundation of consensus; please use the talk pages of the articles you are in dispute over to discuss your material with other editors. Thanks, Sarah 10:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then, its a foundation of consensus, not censorship i take it ??? Good, i have yet to see a valid point why the edits are incorrect, i have looked at the court documents and the the court number is verifiable....there is no challenge at all


 * Your information fails to be a reliable source. It is sourced from a blog.  It also is poorly written and just seems to be making a point something you state yourself.  BTW, don't you find it odd that now 5 other Wikipedian's have looked over your edits and found them lacking?   Shot info  10:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is is a example of iternet trolling, 5 people on the internet maybe all your personalities.


 * Yep, all me. I'm Sarah too, and an admin :-)  Just let me log off this one and log back on to one of my others. :-)  Shot info  10:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mate, this is not a chatroom, so use your intelligence and tell me why a court number is NOT reliable...did you do any research to disqualify it?? did you investigate what s on that site before slandering it(written word is libel right?). Why do you think that site hasnt been shut down or sued? I hope Sarah see why i am running around in circles Chazzj 10:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had read WP:RS you would see what primary sources are used for. If you have read WP:EL you would see that blogs are not allowed to be used in Wikipedia. You have used a link to a blog. Regardless of the information in the blog (it doesn't matter) the blog isn't a reliable source. So the moral is, get a better link. Also you need a source to say why the court case is an example of a kangaroo court, and again, not your blog. Say a newspaper article, or a book. All this is discussed in those links. You are failing to review them and take them on board. Now to log on as somebody else :-)  Shot info  10:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OMG !! Am i allowed to get angry now?? If not i can call him racist right?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazzj (talk • contribs)

Okay mate, that's enough. I've blocked you for 24 hours for continuing your sterile edit war after being warned. Please use this opportunity to review our policies and guidelines. You are most welcome to return when your block expires but if you continue with edit warring and incivility, you will be blocked for increasing lengths of time. We are willing to try to help you but you need to understand that your behaviour is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Sarah 11:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Make sure u put a reason why you took sides of the debate. Is there a review on the way you admin it or your your admin status?? or u are to do as you please? The guy or gal has obviously no challenge Chazzj 11:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes like this: ~ . This will automatically sign and date your comments. Please tell me which debate you are referring to and I will try to give a reason explaining why I took a particular side. At the moment I do not understand what you are referring to and so I am unable to answer your question. Also, which "guy or gal" are you talking about? Thanks, Sarah 11:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * haha, i dont think you are as clever as u make out to be.....what part of the CONTENT of the "kangaroo court" edit war did you find so objectionable as to be removed?? The small flame war was on my chatpage btw so irrelevant. the other party would be Shot Info So is there a REVIEW OR NOT? Chazzj 11:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit war was unacceptable, regardless of whether or not the content was appropriate. I don't think you understand. I am not taking a position on the material you were adding, but if you wish, I am willing to review it with you and try to explain why the other editors kept removing it. I blocked you because you continued edit warring and being disruptive, breaching 3RR several times, despite the fact that you had been warned that if you continued with that behaviour, you would be blocked. You say that Shot info has "no challenge" but I note that Shot info was not the only person removing your edits. Furthermore, Shot info tried to explain here on this talk page some of the objections to your edits and so I think your claim that s/he has "no challenge" is false. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by, "the small flame war was on my chatpage btw so irrelevant" but if you are trying to suggest that you don't have to be civil on talk pages, then you are gravely mistaken. Our rules concerning civility, personal attacks and assuming good faith apply to all pages on Wikipedia, including this talk page. What review are you asking for? A review of the material you were trying to add to the article? Or are you trying to suggest that this block is unfair. If you think the block is unfair, please explain why and I will be willing to give consideration to your block. Sarah 11:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your block is a pathetic attempt at some sort of power surge, shall we say LOL. And yes i do have a dynamic IP and know the use of proxies. SO i am no newbie despite the lack of knowledge of wiwkipedia which is pretty poor software. I am HARDLY concerned with your block.


 * My concern is YOUR BIASED CENSORSHIP.....i am more concerned with your administration, SO is there a REVIEW process for your administration and CENSORSHIP of wikipedia?? Chazzj 11:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there is but it involves you having a look through one of the above links in your welcome greeting to find the correct procedure. Enjoy :-)  Shot info  11:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh please. You're just wasting our time. I have not engaged in any "censorship". In fact, I did not revert or edit your contributions at all until I reverted your final restoration as part of my clean-up of your disruption. It is quite normal practice for an administrator to revert a 3RR violation after blocking. I warned you that you would be blocked if you continued edit warring and you chose to ignore my warning, reverting another three or four times, so you were blocked. If you're not concerned with the block, as you say, then there is no point wasting time reviewing it, is there? If you want to get real and discuss the validity of your block or the content of your edit, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, when your block expires, you are expected to use talk pages to reach a consensus with other editors, but if you continue edit warring and disruption, you will be blocked for increasing periods of time. Sarah 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the edits and unfortunately I can't see anything encyclopaedic in the edit in question. In no other article on Wikipedia is there a straight paste from any part of a court case - even very notable cases like the Mabo v Queensland or Commonwealth v Tasmania (Franklin Dam) cases. Editors are supposed to edit Wikipedia from a neutral point of view - if this case does indeed go through the Federal and High Courts, then it will be written about extensively, will easily meet our external links and reliable sources policies/guidelines, and will get an article under its own name. While it is simply a filed case with no context, it really doesn't have a place on an encyclopaedia unless you can identify independent sources (per reliable sources above) such as a major newspaper or a law journal which are about it and which discuss it. Also note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox - it is not censorship to insist on properly researched facts, another way of looking at it is that if some Federal Court judge came in and started posting opinion all over a case page defending or glorifying the Federal Court, Wikipedians would revert that just as quickly too. With regard to the block, WP:3RR has the status of policy, and I suggest reading the links provided regarding our code of conduct - there's really no room to challenge the block on any clear basis. Orderinchaos 12:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * oh please just because no one pasted from a decision doesnt mean it shouldnt be done...and judges make their opinions known all the time in their decisions, and they have been quoted from all the time. And once again for the SLOW, a 24 hr block is a pathetic attempt, which i could easily circumvent...I will have sarah reviewed for censorship anyways Chazzj 12:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, how about we all test the so-called neutrality and the non-censorship of WIKIPEDIA and run the "test" case through the head honchos of wikipedia?? Anyone game enough?? it's funny but the Kangaroo court system for the definition relies on the dodgeyness you people are displaying ;) HOW IRONIC ...Chazzj 12:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

ALSO i am yet to see a relevant, thought out counter to why my edits should NOT be included. The sources can be verified, the facts are known through court documents. How do i know you are not from Howard's propaganda machine called alternatively the Liberal/labour/Hitler (added for effect) youth? Chazzj 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh. If you want to have me "reviewed for censorship," go for it. As I've already explained to you, I didn't block you for the content of your edits (that is a completely different issue), I was blocked you for your disruptive behaviour and repeated violation of WP:3RR after being warned. Another administrator (Orderinchaos) has reviewed this situation and affirmed the block and explained the problems with your edits. I recommend that you use the next day to have a look through the policies and guidelines which have already been pointed out to you, so when your block expires, you can return and edit constructively without breaking any policies or guidelines. Sarah 14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * what part of "HARDLY CONCERNED WITH YOUR BLOCK" dont you understand ?? Chazzj 10:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. DarkFalls talk 10:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * there is a point of view to be decided by the Federal Court Itself or even the High Court, aint u curious to hear it? Chazzj 10:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your final warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Kangaroo court, you will be blocked from editing. S facets 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ridiculous !!! what part of it is vandalising??? why dont you have it reviewed??? dont make your accusations without making any valid attempts to back it up

"I am a Multimedia student, and a Linguistics and world-culture fan." what a joke Chazzj 12:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)