User talk:Elizabeth Flaherty Scone

April 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Upper Hunter Shire, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've again reverted edits that you made to Upper Hunter Shire, as they are mostly not supported by the sources that you added and appear to be "original research". Content that is supported either lacks appropriate context or is content of the sort that we generally do not include in articles. Please do not add this again but feel free to open a discussion on the article's talk page with a view to gaining consensus as to how your edits can be best incorporated into the article. Note that refusal to discuss is seen as disruptive and can result in you being blocked from editing. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have NO idea who you are AussieLegend, but it is clear you are not part of the local community. The speculation is that you are in fact a troll known as who is a keen supporter of  who is censoring ANY information which he and his faction of Councillors simply don't like. There was a petition tabled in Council, there is a petition currently happening and there have been media reports, but any sources are also deleted. Even the table with primary votes and percentages, from the Electoral Commission which was sourced has been deleted. Stop being so biased and allow Wikipedia to be used for the way it was intended, not as your propaganda. Who are you? Use a proper name and be accountable for the edits, I clearly have been. This type of behaviour just discredits you and the people you are doing bidding for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Flaherty Scone (talk • contribs) 10:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC


 * Being a member of the "local community" has nothing to do with it. This is an encyclopaedia, not a local community website, and we have certain policies and guidelines that we follow. One of these is No original research and essentially says that all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Another policy is Verifiability, which requires that that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia was not intended to publish content of the sort that you are adding, so please stop adding it. And no, I am not this person you mention, and your allegations are inappropriate, and breach even more of our guidelines. Even if I was this person, "outing" somebody is a breach of policy. Wikipedia editors are not required to use real names. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your contributions to this page are VERY biased, so I would like you to clarify who you are...as a source. The information you have elected to include is conspicuous in what it omits. I have sourced all of the statements, which funnily enough you have not. For example you have written that the "Upper Hunter" is Australia's largest "horse-rearing" area, which sounds ridiculous to anyone with indepth knowledge of this area. For example it is "Scone" which is known as "the Horse Capital" of Australia and the title is attributable because it is the largest "thoroughbred breeding" area in Australia. Most off the horses actually leave the area and are not "reared" here as you claim. Also, the "Upper Hunter" has varying definitions and while various areas try to clam the title, it is misleading to use that term. Just stick to the facts. Much less the bias show for example in what you choose to include and omit. For example, you state that Michael Johnsen is an "independent" Councillor, which while true is interesting that you decide to include that fact, without the counter information that he is not only a member of the National Party, but also the candidate for the federal seat of Hunter and the state seat of Upper Hunter. Both are facts, but you only include "certain" facts and delete any that show balance. You need to stop deleting this content, which is sourced. You are merely a contributor also, who is clearly HIGHLY subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Flaherty Scone (talk • contribs) 11:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC


 * I am not the only editor who has edited that page. Anyone is free to edit almost any Wikipedia page, but we cannot accept unsourced or unverifiable content. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The information was sourced and verified...you just deleted it. You are just biased and censoring. From the start of the first line:
 * You identify Michael Johnsen as being an independent Councillor, yet delete the reference to him being the Nationals candidate for the National Party which was sourced. Why would you include his standing as a"independent" Councillor, but omit his role in the "National party"? I have referenced EVERY piece of information, it is just that you are biased and censoring...right down to your ridiculous comment about "horse -rearing" which is completely unsourced and laughable. It is NOT the terminology used and is ridiculous, but you delete the "actual" description used within the international equine industry that I posted. It is such an injustice that you are using this platform in such a biased manner and deleting all off other contributions to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Flaherty Scone (talk • contribs) 12:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC


 * I suggest you examine the article histories. You are making allegations that have no basis in fact. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is POV pushing editor making libellous allegations about a public figure. Thank you.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You are just using this as fodder to delete all subsequent posts. The subsequent posts have been sourced and verified, your bias and power tripping on this page with the delete button is breathtaking and completely goes against the spirit of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Flaherty Scone (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning
The content you insist on adding violates numerous Wikipedia policies. It does not follow the neutral point of view, if includes poorly-sourced negative material about living people, it is drawn from unreliable sources and your reaction to its removal consists primarily of personal attacks and (apparently unfounded) attempts at "outing". If this continues, you will be blocked from editing. Your best course is to discuss this at the relevant Talk pages and seek guidance fomr more experienced users of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added information which is sourced and it is being deleted by another admin based on bias. To the point of the ridiculous where the admin has said that the area is famous for "horse-rearing" a laughable term in the equine industry and completely. I changed it to the description in common usage in the equine industry, but this was deleted. All of the information was sourced, I suggest you go back and review the last information I posted which was deleted. Why should references to the the Popularly Elected Mayor, which is newsworthy locally and directly relevant to this topic be delete? Why so threatened if there is no bias to this event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Flaherty Scone (talk • contribs) 12:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now try reading my note again, following the links this time. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Friendlier note
Elizabeth Scone, I'm KoshVorlon, I'm not an admin, nor a sysop, nor any kind of authority figure here, I'm a user, just like you are. I see that you're trying to make corrections on the Upper Hunter Shire article, and I see that those corrections are getting challenged. Let me see if I can shed some light on what's going wrong.

First, Wikipedia welcomes contributions from anyone, but they have to be reliably sourced. For example:

You wrote:  Following the 2012 local government elections the community voiced their discontent with the current election method for Mayor and the community petitioned Council to implement a popularly elected Mayor model, which was presented to Council on Monday, September 23, 2013  and you sourced it to http://www.sconeadvocate.com   (link was more detailed ). I'm not familiar with this magazine at all, but the reference appears reliable and it says what you say it says. That's appears to be a  good reference

Later on you write  The community are currently lobbying Council to hold a referendum at the next local government elections in 2016 to change to a popularly elected Mayor , this time you source it to facebook. On Wikipedia, facebook is not considered a reliable source so this reference wouldn't work, but if you were to find a reference in a reliable magazine or newspaper in your area, that would work and the addition would most likely stay.

Here you write '' Should Cr Johnsen stand down from Council it would not cause a by-election, as it is less than 18 months prior to the next election. '' and you cite http://www.austlii.edu.au with an exact link that shows the law of the land regarding elections. It's an education website, and as it's not linking to someone's dissertation, or blog, it appears to be reliable, but it doesn't mention Johnsen by name nor does it appear to be about him, so this reference, although reliable might not work, but if you were to find a reference, in a reliable publication that mentions what you are proposing to add in, it would very likely stay.

Wikipedia has a set of rules that take a bit of adjustment, but feel free to ask over at The Teahouse and they'll be happy to assist. KoshVorlon  R.I.P Leonard Nimoy  "Live Long and Prosper"   16:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * While is essentially correct, his assessment of the first statement is not. The entire claim, "Following the 2012 local government elections the community voiced their discontent with the current election method for Mayor and the community petitioned Council to implement a popularly elected Mayor model, which was presented to Council on Monday, September 23, 2013" is not supported by the source at all, which is dated September 27, 2012, a year before the petition was allegedly delivered. The source only says that council had been asked "to seek community views on introducing a popular vote for mayor" and "the views of the community on changing the way the shire mayor is elected could be tested". There is no mention that "the community voiced their discontent". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)