User talk:Jcreser

Image copyright problem with Image:IMG 1919.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:IMG 1919.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:New Zealand Police Raid Photo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:New Zealand Police Raid Photo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. [midnight comet]  [talk]  11:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Siemer.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Siemer.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. [midnight comet]  [talk]  11:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Siemer.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Siemer.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:New_Zealand_Police_Raid_Photo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:New_Zealand_Police_Raid_Photo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

advice
The article was proposed for deletion by another editor, but he neglected to notify you: The reason given was: " contravening orders of the New Zealand High Court; defamation of living persons; self-promotion; breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons"

As reviewing administrator, I have declined to delete it, on the ground that the case is notable, since the NZ Supreme Court has accepted it for review,, we do not censor on the basis of court orders that have no effect in the US,  & the other problems are fixable. However, it will undoubtedly be nominated for regular deletion, and you need to make some improvements immediately: Please read WP:BLP. In particular:

every specific statement about a person must be sourced to a third party source. For a controversial statement, it needs to be a published article in a news source, or a court judgment--not the allegations in a brief or a statement by a party to the case. Reviews of his book in reliable publications are good sources; the book itself is not. Negative comment about him and about other parties must be very carefully handled. Only facts must be stated, not unsourced editorializing about them. Siemers comments of the judges are particularly problematic. It is my impression that an article of a paragraph or two might be more acceptable here, but nobody can predict the result of a WP:Articles for Deletion debate.  DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Te Henare
I have tried to give you advice, but you have ignored it. The sources you are using are inadequate.

A blog is almost never a suitable source for controversial material. If you can find a reliable source, you still cannot say "he has a well-deserved reputation as a ...", you can only say "So-and-so says he is a ...".

Your two sources on his union involvement fail to support the statement you are making. The first, as I pointed out, does not mention Henare. The one added more recently says only that he was a member of the union, not that he was an officer. Being a member of a union is not normally considered of sufficient importance to add to an article.

You insist on changing his name, but you have given no evidence that the name Raymond is still used by him. The name used in Wikipedia is the name he uses and is commonly known by. See for example your own reference to his parliamentary biography.

It is clear that you have a strong opinion about Henare. That opinion is fine for you to express on your own website, but Wikipedia strives to present information neutrally, and we have extra-strong policies regardings sources for articles on living people. You are in breach of these policies, so I am giving you a formal warning. Any further edits to the article must be backed by reliable sources.

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Tau Henare. Thank you.- gadfium 20:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Tau Henare. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - gadfium 04:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC) In response to the suspension of editing for contributions to the page Tau Henare,

The desciption of Mr Henare as having " a well deserved reputation as a carpetbagger" was amended after discussion and the comment "well deservred removed.

Blocked
It seems you mistake inadequate sourcing on controversial topics for living people, with censorship. You have several times claimed to have reliable sources, but you have not produced them. Please take advantage of this enforced vacation from Wikipedia to find those sources, or find an article that you can edit neutrally.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. gadfium 05:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

John Creser

jcreser@gmail.com

Jurisdiction:

Court of Appeal

Reference No.:

CA 121/89

Hearing Date:

23 Nov 1989

Judgment Date:

05 December 1989

Statutory Officer/Judge:

Casey J (presiding), Bisson J, Hardie Boys J

Representation:

Creser in person ; Shaw

Location:

Wellington

Parties:

Creser v Northern Clerical and Legal Employees etc IUOW

Summary:

COURT OF APPEAL - Case Stated - Labour Court declined Appellant's application for COMPLIANCE ORDER - Whether Labour Court entitled to receive as evidence documentary material given to it informally by Appellant at hearing - s42 & s303(1) LRA - Former Clerical Worker (refer also [1989] 1 NZILR 117)

Abstract:

The Appellant appealed, by way of Case Stated, against a Labour Court decision, declining his application for a compliance order. The Appellant, a Union member, alleged that there were irregularities in the Union's books. He requested, pursuant to rule 23 of the Union's Rules, access to the Unions register of members. The Union thereupon, returned his renewal of subscription thus declining him Union membership, and refused his request. The Appellant then applied to the Labour Court for a Compliance Order, ordering the Union to comply with Rule 23. This was declined as the Appellant, being unfamiliar with Court procedures failed to: 1) tender evidence of the Unions Rules as required by s42 LRA. Instead he tendered an uncertified copy of what purported to be the Union Rules, 2) establish in evidence that he was a member of the Union. The appellant did however, furnish to the Court copies of communication from the Union which on their face, confirmed that he was a member. On appeal the Court considered; whether the Labour Court was right to decline the Appellants application; specifically whether the Court could accept as evidence, the documentary material submitted to it informally by the Appellant. HELD: s42 was to be read alongside s303(1) LRA (the equity and good conscience provisions). When read in this way, it was open for the judge to accept, the documentary material, as evidence of 1 & 2. Appeal allowed. Case referred back to the Labour Court for rehearing in light of Court of Appeals conclusions.

Result:

Appeal allowed, Rehearing, Costs of reasonable expenses, travel and accommodation

Nomination of Vince Siemer for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vince Siemer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vince Siemer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)