User talk:Ozbroz

(CanberraBulldog - please see post at bottom) Ozbroz (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)ozbroz

Gosh - I didn't even know that I "could" remove stuff once it was posted here... Now that I have had more of a look around - the "newbie biting" articles made me smile! I suppose I did make myself especially tasty - and still tasty it seems...

(Thanks James B Watson)

And James, Whoa - hey - yes absolutely, now that I am less a NOOB I categorically state I will not be putting out any kind of campaigning here. I just did not know I could remove my NOOB question that did not know it was against the rules. Besides, to be honest, surely it is obvious that even if I did do anything deemed out of order it would be jumped on from a great height? In other words, unblock me and see by my actions.

WP:BITE WP:NEWBIES WP:NEWCOMER WP:NOOB WP:DONTBITE

- and though a newbie - I had no warning during the couple of hours I was permitted to edit. --- - at least I tried you know - I was indeed bold enough to post to a comments page - I thought the comments page would be a safe enough place to put my toe into the Wiki water (foot it seems;) - I at least had the good sense not to post such things to the main article. - As a new user I have no history of nor do I intend to make the wrong kind of postings to this forum


 * Anthony Bradbury - yes, it was not the right forum for questioning motives. Sorry about that everyone.
 * Have a read of "http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/mp/7561202/historian-casts-doubt-on-war-heros-record"
 * To be fair, the living person I criticised does indeed promote the things I wrote about on their website, so unfortunately it is true (and counter to productive Wiki discussion) because I then slipped into opinionating (ie value judgement) of that persons motives. In fairness to Jack Sue, the person in that article linked above also applied "value judgement" regarding the late Jack Sue if the above linked report in the West Australian is to be believed, by calling the deceased a "liar". The problem with that is that it goes beyond the simple reporting of facts, it goes beyond being impartial, and in itself is very "un-wiki-like" - and then my own error in this forum was to do the same regarding the person attributed in that newspaper article above, which got this whole thing headed down the wrong path. As noted, I was/am a newbie, and did not realise at the time that it was the wrong thing to say in the wrong place (ie that even the discussion page was not the right place I was unaware - I mistakenly assumed that discussion could bee freer on the "discussion" page - so again - sorry, and can only plead WP:NOOB

Ozbroz (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)ozbroz

Hi T. Canens - thanks for the info - what are "Oversighted Edits"? - I made no prior edits to the main article - I edited the comments page - oh, and upon being invited to do so by the user "Anotherclown" I did try to add a link to the Sunday Times article (which someone then fixed up for me, because the reference URL I put there showed up only as text. So I did nothing at all wrong to the main article - Ozbroz (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)ozbroz

Ozbroz (talk)ozbroz.

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for POV-pushing. On the basis of this post to your talk page, the statement at User:Ozbroz and your comments at Talk:Jack Wong Sue it is obvious that you're here to push your personal views rather than edit in a neutral fashion. If you

would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of the reviewing admin: please note that I have deleted the comments from Talk:Jack Wong Sue and have requested that they be oversighted as they are, in my judgement, potentially libelous. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In my personal view they are unarguably libellous. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation - external reference from NSW Blue Mountains Vietname Vets discusses Jack Sue, and the content seems to reflect the content of the main Wiki article. http://bmvets.com.au/doc/2010_September_CONTACT.pdf Can anybody contact the author of this (Brian Day it says) to request further citations for corroboration of Wiki page content?

Brian Day either copied this article from Wikipedia or he originally wrote the Wikipedia article as they both look very much the same (before being cleaned up by Wikipedia editors). Where is his sources from, who is Brian Day? Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone at Wiki advise me as to whether this link "http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/mp/7561202/historian-casts-doubt-on-war-heros-record/3/#comments" can be added as a reference? Comments therein seems to be independent enough (ie not from Sue famil) and corroborate some of the content of the main article?


 * I am not one of "the few" that Daniel Case referred to, so I can't judge the removed material. However I am one of the many who can see your note at the top of this page. I would never consider unblocking anyone who is publicly announcing that they intend to use Wikipedia for campaigning. You would need not only to remove the message, but to make a very clear statement that you have dropped all such intentions before I would even think about it. From what I have seen, together with what others have said about what I can't see, I would say that Wikipedia is not the right place for you. Facebook or MySpace might be more in the nature of what you are looking for. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To avoid being accused of having delusions of grandure, I should say that I saw the posting in question after deletion but before oversighting. It was, IMHO, libellous. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey CanberraBulldog - thanks for looking at my post! - that is encouraging to me ! --- I don't know Brian Day's sources either - I have tried to contact via the BMVETS group the article was posted with, am awaiting response. The article itself seems to have a couple of internal references which would be worth following (checking), and the special ops website seems to cross check some of the content with references - but honestly I have not taken the time to go through the special ops site top collate internal references, nor Brian Days pdf, - not yet anyway - have you?


 * By the way CanberraBulldog, as I seem to have been a very tasty NOOB given I have earned the ultimate bite (I see that after the event). I wonder if you could help me get the indefinite block lifted? Whether by advice or (is it too much to ask) grudging support perhaps? It looks like I have to take it to the ban appeals subcommittee. Know much about that?


 * Sorry I can't and won't help you as I think you should be blocked. I find it very hard to believe just from one short article that you would have such a strong believe about Mr Sue and that he is so correct and that the historian is so incorrect - just from one article!  In reference to Mr Brian Day's article, he does not use one single source/reference in his article and if I was 'Wikipedia' I would sue him for plagiarism - it is not his originally work.

In regard to the special ops page the fella who writes it has no respect within Z Special Unit or people associated with Z. You should not use or rely on a self published website for information about Mr Sue or Z Special. CanberraBulldog (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

-- I think I owe you an explanation too: --- You know, I did not do the things you accused me of :) - I have never edited the main article, and have not been having a unreferenced edit war with you, and I am not Barry either (too funny!:) I nearly fell off my chair reading that one (not a family member either LOL). My primary emotional baggage in all this was based on that article the W.A. newspaper "the west australian" published back in July 2010 (see link at top of page) where L Silver was attributed by the reporter (Moran) as having called Jack Sue a liar. I remember someone commenting at the time, and my thoughts were simply that this seemed a really odd thing for a historian to say given they usually deal in facts and leave emotion and motives out of the picture. Then when I saw the recent dispute I dropped into the Wiki comments page (as you saw) breaking all the rules unwitttingly - I do retract and regret that (WP:NOOB). Believe me, the rapid events within a few hours the other week made my head spin ! Cheers, Ozbroz (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)ozbroz

Talk page access removed
As you are continuing to make the kind of comments which got you blocked here, I have just removed your ability to edit this talk page. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)