User talk:Crocodile2009

WP:EW
Applies to those who repeatedly add unsourced or poorly sourced contentious claims about living people to any article per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Health Services Union expenses affair

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Health Services Union expenses affair. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - You  really  can  14:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring
Hi - I have reported your edits at the 3RR noticeboard - Please accept there are multiple editors that object to your addition in regards to neutrality and please self revert/remove it and open a discussion about your desired additions on the talkpage - You  really  can  15:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will happily edit it, but I'm not removing the entire section because ALP staffers are working overtime protecting Craig Thomson. I want to know specifically which part they found objectionable, not just removing the entire thing which is backed up with news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:Crocodile2009 (talk • contribs)
 * The whole lot is imo a violation of WP:NPOV - ''embroiled, in the lede just says it all - we are not a red top outlet - Please remove it and I will work through it on the talkpage with you. - thats how we do things round here. You  really  can  15:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has already had all the information edited out of it, it's probably one of the biggest political scandals in Australian history and we've got so little information in the article it's worthless reading.

There is no background to the affair and I am giving some. I ask that it stays and those who want to can edit away at what I've added rather than simply deleting information to make it less biased. The defamation case is part of history and you can't delete history.

BTW this article has been so hijacked by Labor supporters that there is more information on this affair in the very FIRST edit. Why not take it back to the first edit, it might actually be worth reading then.


 * I am unable to edit the content myself as I work a One-revert rule editing style - please have a quick read of it - one which I can recommend - Please also read WP:BRD if you have a moment . - I see your desired content addition has been removed yet again - please don't replace it, move to the talkpage and discuss. -  You  really  can  15:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

How is it that minutes after posting several individuals who have edited the tits off this and the Craig Thomson article are removing my additions? Don't you find that a little suspicious.
 * Not at all - the addition you are desirious of is far from policy compliant imo - I know user:collect a fair bit of his editing history and I know he is not an Aussie - as I am not - and his focus is on WP:Policy and guidelines as is mine - especially in regards to content about living people - please have a quick look at WP:BLP - in regards to how we regards disputed content about living people. Thanks - You  really  can  15:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, it makes me happier knowing that other people have had all references to the failed court case removed as well. Unfortunately without this information the entire article is worthless reading because it doesn't explain how the affair began, bit like Watergate without the deepthroat.
 * Hm.. I suggest to you that you get the highest quality sources and write something conservativly and looking at it from a very neutral position and that way no one will remove it. - Best regards to you - You  really  can  16:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR case
The issues about Craig Thomson have been widely discussed here. For example, Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair. If you make any further reverts at Health Services Union expenses affair it may lead to a block. Instead of edit warring, you can use the talk page to try to persuade others. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Great timing
I wish you'd acted a little earlier or later. I wake up to find a storm in what had been a millpond! I agree whole-heartedly with you. This article has had the essence pulled out of it, and doesn't mention the primary facts about the affair, as reported on the front pages of every newspaper in Australia over the past three years. However, we do things by the rules here, and we do things coöperatively, and we do things politely. Accusing other editors of being stooges for various groups doesn't help. Nor does edit-warring. Stick around. We'll put the facts back into the article so as to provide a useful reference for those readers seeking information, but we'll do it by the rules, if you please, and we'll do it without needlessly aggravating one editor who is particularly sensitive over this. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Kathy Jackson
Thanks for the note. I've been doing other stuff for a couple of weeks, but had a look at the article. doesn't look too bad. I removed a couple of unsupported statements, flagged as such for two months, found a source for another and removed Independent Australia as a source, though the statement itself looks reasonable.

I'd be hesitant to brand other editors as supporters of any particular party or agenda. Quite often an assumption is simply wrong, and even if right, so what? We have rules and procedures to keep things on track, and just follow the guidelines. You can always ask for help - Wikipedia is full of folk who will give advice. As a fallback, just ask for more eyes on a problem and you'll generally get well-meaning people hopping in to help. --Pete (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Are you aware of the above rule? Please read if you are not. --Merbabu (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Operation Sovereign Borders
Hello, This edit summary was rather unhelpful - accusing people who aren't vandals of "vandalising wiki articles" is considered highly offensive, and asserting political motivations to edits which changed your POV pushing suggests that you're taking a "battleground"-style approach. Please try to edit collaboratively with others, and use the article talk page if you'd like to discuss its content. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for POV pushing. From your conduct, and especially your talk page posts and edit warring, it appears that your only purpose for editing Wikipedia is to push your political views, including in articles on living people. If you ask to be unblocked, please make sure that you read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP first. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)