User talk:NikoVee

Hi

I have reverted the changes you made to the Geoffrey Edelsten article as I felt you made too many changes all at once and it was too hard to evaluate them. The article is contentious and I suggest making edits to one paragraph or section at a time so that hey can be more easily reviewed. Thank you --Matilda talk 04:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message. I was not aware that making changes that other editors felt were "too many" were against any rules on Wikipedia. If you feel that there were too many or have an issue with a change that was made, please discuss it on the talk page of the article. Also, I am not sure why you pointed out the "pink helicopter." I found little if any mention of a pink helicopter in independent sources. Also, the helicopter photo looked like a red helicopter and there is nothing in the photo showing that is is flying above a stadium or that it is actually the subject's helicopter. I am reverting the article back to the changes that were made as they are all well-sourced and written from a neutral point of view. The previous article as it stands looks like someone was trying to smear him by putting in information about his arrest and convictions in every section of the article. There is a policy on due and undue weight and I believe that I balanced that by putting the information in the opening paragraph and also putting it under the medical register section in the article. There seems to be quite a bit of discussion about this person on the talk page already so it is probably best to take it up there before you remove a constructive edit based on a "feeling." Also, I see from your talk page that you were retired but came back rather quickly to make a change on this article. Do you have a special connection to it? Thanks. --NikoVee (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Removing any mention of Edelsten's incarceration, is that balanced from a neutral point of view as well? WWGB (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is your issue. If adding a sentence about him serving time for the "convictions" for hiring someone to beat up a patient that is already stated in the opening and subsequent article, then please do so and then leave it alone. It appears that you either have something against me or this article as you did not edit for almost 4 hours and then miraculously came on and made an edit 4 minutes after a user who has only made 1 other edit since June of last year?  --NikoVee (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Making many changes in a single edit to a contentious article is not against Wikipedia rules but changing one section or paragraph at a time makes it easier for other editors to follow what you are doing and understand your rationale. It is a better way of building consensus. My return from retirement was because I was notified about the change to the article through the removal of the picture from it and its subsequent orphaning.  By the way if you go to the clip that is the source of the picture and listen you will hear the helicopter described as the "now famous pink and white helicopter".  I have no other special connection to the article than my past editing of it and defending it against inappropriate edits made by public relations personnel hired by Edelsten that seemed to breach Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. --Matilda talk 07:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of my disbelief in your motive, which I am sure you have a disbelief in mind, I do see some of your point. The single may have been confusing to you. However, if you have edited this article (which you have), and have spent quite a bit of time on it (which you have), you would quite easily see the edits that I made. Since this whole talk page / SPI / neutral point of view / edit warring BS has started, I have taken a look at the talk page a little closer and see that there was some MAJOR violations of conflict of interest in the past. Looks like he tried to edit the article himself or someone from his  PR team did. I believe if you take a closer look at the article in my sandbox, you will see that this is NO PR campaign. I was simply trying to edit it to be neutral. Looks like I picked the wrong article to take on as my first article. My mistake.
 * I also hear you about the pink helicopter, but I was confused as to what it even has to do with his biography. The articles that I see about it are of him denying it. If anything, there should be something stating that he was said to have a pink helicopter but he denied it or there was no proof. Also, you can see the image here of the same helicopter in your photo and it doesn't look pink (you have to scroll down quite a bit to see the image). That is why I removed the reference. Seems to have nothing to do with the article and I can't see any source that links it to him. Whatever, I guess. If the only issue you and the others have is that I took out that he was incarcerated and there was a pink helicopter then I think there is an easy solution. I also figured that hammering him being barred from practicing medicine seemed a little over the top. I scaled it back and put it in appropriate sections. The title "1980's and beyond" seemed a little outdated as the section is covering 30+ years? Maybe I just don't get it. If you have a chance, look at the sandbox. Please supply me with some unbiased feedback as I believe after spending 6 hours of my day on Wikipedia has got me hooked and I plan to be here for a while. Can use any advice if you feel like giving it. --NikoVee (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * just take it as read that I am passionate about the pink helicopter. I think because I remember it so clearly and because he has so vehemently denied it.  I recall when the helicopter was repossessed by people posing as mechanics but representing his financiers.  Unfortunately news articles from that time are not on the web - too early for Trove and too early for the Internet.  The source I provided is a contemporary news report showing the helicopter and identifying it as pink and his.  It is in the context of him taking not the Swans and is actually in my view a more interesting source than many because it is of the time and includes Edelsten speaking about the takeover.  The Swans takeover and move from Melbourne was an interesting part of his career and like many of his endeavours transformed that part of the business world that he engaged in. He made a difference to football. He made a difference to medicine.  He was and still is flamboyant. Articles of him denying the helicopter are not reliable when you compare it with contemporary news footage.
 * advice for a new Wikipedian - pace yourself, always provide references, edit in chunks that are manageable for others to review with clear edit summaries. Move to the article talk page if you are being reverted.  When in doubt edit a different article.  geographical topics are usually less contentious and more soothing! Good luck--Matilda talk 11:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
Your recent editing history at Geoffrey Edelsten shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bilby (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have requested page protection already . I am also in the process of finding out how to report them for either being the same person or working together to disrupt Wikipedia. --NikoVee (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WWGB. Thank you. Sockpuppetry is a serious accusation to make, and making unfounded cases like this is not acceptable. Rschen7754 09:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely understand. I would also request that you assume good faith in that I did not just blindly make the accusation. I presented what I felt was good evidence of meatpuppetry, which I still feel is taking place. From reading the article discussing meatpuppetry, it states that there is no need for a "checkuser" or that they would not be able to prove it by checking the users. That is why I presented the case the way I did. If you read all of my edits and comments, I have assumed good faith from the beginning. Like I have said before, I am new to Wikipedia but not new to using a Wiki. Your rules are easy to find like the one about not lashing out against new users. That will be the last I will talk about it as I see you have deleted the investigation. Just please bear in mind that even if there is an "unfounded accusation", it does not mean that the accusation was NOT made in good faith. Mine was. Sorry for your trouble. --NikoVee (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the thing is, you accused an admin of being a sock of someone else. You presented no diffs. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a meatpuppet. I was instructed by the checkusers to not only archive the page right away, but delete it (something we rarely do). Please do not do this again without solid and firm evidence. (You are welcome to look through the SPI archives to see how a case should look). --Rschen7754 10:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I accused them of being a sockpuppet OR a meatpuppet. If you look at the Wikipedia article on meatpuppets, you will see that they should be filed at the same location as a sockpuppet. Also, no diffs can be presented on a meatpuppet. The evidence that I showed was in my opinion good evidence which is why I filed it. Admin or not, if you felt that someone was a sock or meat, would you not report it? I believe I read that I should be bold? I already know your response as I am sure that you still don't see the same thing I was looking at, I probably did not do a good enough job of explaining what I saw. Regardless, it was not an attack, but believe what you may. Sorry for your trouble. --NikoVee (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * NikoVee, please see the result of the complaint about your edits at WP:AN3. If you make any more controversial edits at Geoffrey Edelsten in the next seven days that are not supported by a talk page consensus, you may be blocked for edit warring without further notice. Your suggestions of meatpuppetry are without foundation and border on disruption. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice, I get a warning but have never received a welcome. Oh, well. I believe all future edits to the article should be on talk page consensus. Also, I believe you did not see the evidence I presented either as maybe I did not set it out the way I saw it. However, I would report the same activity again, not because someone "disagrees" with me, but because  of how things transpired. 3 editors all reverting my edits right after each other. 1 editor had not made changes for days, 1 editor was on earlier but had come back later specifically to edit that article, 1 editor who only had one other edit since June of last year. All three editing the same article within minutes. I do not believe that this is borderline disruption, but something that I should bring to your attention which I did. Sorry you had to look into it, but just because you find  that there was no merit does not mean that I was just throwing crap against the wall and hoping it sticks. Either way, I understand your warning and will take the issue to the talk page. Also, I am sure that editors will be less likely to bring something like this to your attention if they are warned for doing what they believe is either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Regardless, the point is moot and I am moving on. Welcome to Wikipedia,  I guess. --NikoVee (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear to be an experienced editor, in both your use of editing techniques but also conventions such as talk back, reporting meat puppets, use of notice boards ... It seems surprising that you would have acquired all these skills without having previously edited wikipedia. I appreciate there are other wikis out there but ...  Given your experience (whether on wikipedia or on other wikis), you would appreciate that all three editors would have the article on their watchlists, as all three have edited extensively on Australian topics.  There is nothing sinister about prompt editing of a controversial article on wikipedia by experienced editors.  I have previously explained why I came back specifically to edit the article - talk page notification is emailed to me.  Once again nothing sinister about a sudden reappearance.  I similarly reappeared to acknowledge a notification not long ago.
 * While I am pleased to see you have taken to the talk page of the Edelsten article, I think you do not seem to me to be merely a disinterested new wikipedian. Very unusual for a newbie to wish to add information about charity work and ill health of somebody not very important in the scheme of things without having a connection.  I draw your attention to Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.  Regards --Matilda talk 09:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)