User talk:DB Coopper

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, 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. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC) I have complied with the neutral point of view policy in every way possible. My edit was reliably sourced and factual in every regard, and it improves the articles inclusivity and gender equality values. It was not an opinion stated as a fact or vice versa, it was a fact. It was not a contested assertion, these men actually died from incineration by a partner and this can be easily verified. The language was 'matter of fact' and in no way judgemental, and there are no opposing views as to the manner of death in the other murders or who committed them. In fact the sameness of the circumstances of each of the 4 deaths meets the relevancy requirements for editing articles too. By refusing to make this article gender neutral and inclusive, you are deliberately denying the relevant facts about the 'incineration' epidemic that exists in Australia...even one Australian lost to this type of horror per year is too much and the public needs educating about the prevalence of this horrific crime. As such, I will continue to update the page and you may draw Wikipedias attention to it if you wish. Good day.
 * No, you have not. None of the three references cited mention any of the three men whose names you have inserted into the article, let alone making any connection between their deaths and Clarke's, nor the responses or the time between the deaths - that is your own original research which is not allowed here. Wikipedia works by consensus: when you have made an edit and it has been reverted (by multiple editors), you are expected to explain on the talk page why you think the content should be included, rather than continuing to make the same edit over and over again. And even if this information was agreed to be included in the article, it should be in the body, not in the "lead", which should be a summary of the whole article. Continuing to simply make the same edit without discussing it with other editors is called edit warring, and can lead to you being blocked from editing here. Melcous (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The references you refer to are your own, not mine. I do agree however in so far as I should have included a reference to the news articles in referring to each murder, I will correct that oversight on my next edit. The connection between the deaths is that they are all the same type of domestic violence murder committed by a partner or ex partner using the incineration method, a heavy theme in your own writing. For that reason, the preamble is the only correct place to make a mention of them. The prohibition against OR simply means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, and not something that I have authored myself. I have addressed that issue. I also consider that this exchange where I have explained my edits on this talk page satisfies your concern about 'edit warring' too. Maybe you could simply explain your objection to the mention of more Domestic violence incidents that are of virtually the exact same circumstance in order to better understand about the prevalence of this style of murder instead of citing technical infractions as your reasoning for deleting my edits. As I have said, this incineration type of murder has been committed 4 times in 4 years, that's a horrific fact that you seem to want omitted from the page. I will do you the courtesy of delaying my next edit until you have replied with those reasonings. In the interest of Domestic Violence awareness and education, gender equality and inclusion, I will continue my efforts to draw attention to this heinous method of murder
 * Just to be clear, they are not "my" references, nor "my" writing on the article. The article has been edited by numerous editors, working together over time. Content should not be added without references, so your edits should all have been reverted simply for the fact that you did not include references. And the references would themselves need to draw the connections and inferences you are wanting to make, not simply state that other acts of a similar kind occurred. But the larger point is that wikipedia works by having certain policies, and these are not mere "technical infractions" but the core ideas of how this project works. One of these, as I have now stated multiple times, is that editors work together to achieve consensus. You are welcome to start a discussion on the talk page of the article to propose content you think should be added, but you should not simply reinstate content that has been disputed. And whenever you engage with other editors on talk pages, whether here or there, please sign your posts. Melcous (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Still wondering why you would not want to draw attention to the frequency of 'incineration' murders of spouses in this country. The preamble states that the event started a huge conversation about DV but gives the impression that this was the only time this type of crime has ever happenned, what drives your reluctance to correct this erroneous position? BB Coopper
 * I'm not here to "draw attention" to anything or not, and if you are, you might be in the wrong place. Wikipedia articles are not here to right great wrongs, but rather to document what reliable, independent third party sources have noted about a topic. Perhaps you would find it helpful to read this introductory page and other guidelines I have linked to about what wikipedia is and how it works. And once again, please learn to sign your posts properly. Melcous (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the tips about how to edit posts, you can probably tell I'm new here but also that I am passionate about Domestic Violence prevention and awareness. I have tried to follow your instructions so hopefully it's all good now, let me know if it doesn't work, cheers DB Coopper (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)(talk)
 * I'm sorry, but you are still not understanding how wikipedia works. You would need a reliable source that actually makes the point that Clarke's death did something that those other deaths did not. You providing sources that simply reference those deaths and then making a point about them is considered original research - see this link, particularly WP:SYNTH where it says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." And as I have now asked you four times, you need to discuss this on the article's talk page to gain consensus with other editors, not just keep putting it back in to the article without that agreement. If you do so again, you will be edit warring, and you may find yourself blocked from editing here. Thank you Melcous (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Every time you have cited a wikipedia rule, I have researched it and except for the technical protocols which I admit to not knowing, I feel I address each of your concerns in my next edit but suddenly another group of concerns pops up and information quite relevant the crime being discussed is being erased. You can't include catagories like 'death from fire' and then ban any further mention of it. that's not a credible position and you are not a neutral group.
 * I get that it feels frustrating, because there are a number of different guidelines here that your editing has had problems with. But again, I am not trying to "ban any further mention". I have given you the clearest advice I can on what to do next - start a discussion on the talk page and see if you can work with other editors to build consensus. Otherwise let it go. Melcous (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)