User talk:PNGChimbu

Nick mcKenzie

 * Bookscale
 * Redfrog1001
 * WWGB
 * The Drover's Wife
 * Thumbprintthumb
 * FactsvFiction

Nic McKenzie’s page is now looking fantastic, well done everyone on a great page showing his accomplishments, his challenges, his successes and his awards. It no longer looks like a personal resume. The original selective narrative which included positive facts only, now has balance and maintains objectivity and independence, taking it beyond a personal promotional tool. Despite messages from you telling me (and others) that I was causing disruption to the page I am delighted that you have amended and obviously took note of what I had written. You have all been working on further information to give the page a balanced view. I note Reference 37 "Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker" The Walkley Foundation. Retrieved 15 April 2014, comes up with a 404 "Page not found error". To prevent further messages of disruption about me perhaps someone could fix that problem. Thank you to FactsvFiction for your support, I am sorry you were hammered in the process but it seems there was a serious misunderstanding of what I was trying to achieve. It has now been achieved. PNGChimbu (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Qldsydmlb

•	 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Nick Mckenzie, you may be blocked from editing. Your selective narrative is not in accordance with the guideline of Wikipediea.


 * ensure the article contains a neutral point of view

The article requires factual information to give it a balanced view and maintain objectivity and independence. Legal cases are of prime interest to the public in the name of Justice.

The disruption to this page is not the factual information that has been added but the removal of factual information relevant to the Legal Cases. The public has a right to know and you have no right to continue to remove editing by others for your own purpose. To continue your accusation of vandalism is unacceptable and a deliberate obstruction to editing by other public editors.

There has been no attempt by me to remove any edits by any other editor on this page, I have simply added information which is relevant.

I note the final messages by "Bookscale" and "The Drovers Wife" regarding bullying on this page!

To continue your accusations of vandalism is unacceptable. You are in breach of editing Wikipedia editing rules and must maintain the freedom of open editing. If you are unable to accept what other editors contribute then I suggest you read the Policy on "deliberate editing to obstruct or defeat".

If you continue to delete my material, that complies with Wikipedia, I will continue to post it. (PNGChimbu (talk)(talk) 08:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC))


 * WWGB
 * Qldsydmlb

WWGB you were part of a group who received an email from me 14 February 2020. A number of editors had worked on the material I posted and it was looking terrific. It has now all been deleted. This page is for public editing, when someone works hard to add factual information that is also referenced and gives balance to the page, there is nothing to stop anyone changing it. For one editor to simply delete that with a reference to vandalism is unacceptable and defies the guidelines of Wikipedia. I have no objection to editors working on information I provide as seen in my last email to you on 14 Feb. I have not made changes to any other editors work and respect what they do. However, I will not be intimidated by other editors who obstruct what I am doing and I will continue to add to the page unless they are prepared to work with me. The choice is yours and Qldsydmlb. Please pay me the courtesy of a reply. PNGChimbu (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Craig McLachlan

 * User:5 albert square

You are in breach of editing Wikipedia editing rules and must maintain the freedom of open editing. If you are unable to accept what other editors contribute then I suggest you read the Policy on "deliberate editing to obstruct or defeat". Please refrain fro removing factual information regarding a living person. PNGChimbu (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * PNGChimbu, your edit to the article is disputed. Take your concerns to the article talk page and get consensus for your proposed changes as the burden is on you to do so. Continuing to edit war will ultimately lead to a block of your account despite what you've written above, which has zero basis in Wikipedia policy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Ponyo/templates You are in breach of editing Wikipedia editing rules and must maintain the freedom of open editing. If you are unable to accept what other editors contribute then I suggest you read the Policy on "deliberate editing to obstruct or defeat". Please refrain from removing factual information regarding a living person. All allegations made by the media have now been legally dismissed by a Court it is incorrect and defamatory to continue to allege them as true. Your attempts to stop another editor from placing factual information is a breach of the Wikipedia rules.

Please heed your own advice "Being involved in an edit war" you have already violated the Policies and the Rules 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This is not an edit war, but a bullying attempt by you. Please refer to factual information regarding the laws of Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNGChimbu (talk • contribs)


 * It's not a bullying attempt by anyone, you are going against Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:EW. As you've violated it, you've now been reported for violating it. Ponyo has tried to explain above about edit warring to you and both of us have pointed out what you need to do. The onus is on you to start a discussion to gain consensus on the talk page of the article. Please start a discussion on the talk page of the affected article.-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2021 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Craig McLachlan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Longhair\talk 01:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please use the time out by 's block to read Wikipedia's policies. You've said that Wikipedia is alleging the allegations as true. We're not. Wikipedia has to be written from a neutral point of view and a biography of a living person in particular also has to be verifiable with reliable sources. The last sentence specifically states "McLachlan was acquitted of all charges" and that is backed up by the reference right next to it, if you read it, it says "Belinda Wallington acquitted him of the first two charges on Tuesday". The first two sentences of your edit have both said that he's not guilty, however, you wouldn't write it like that on Wikipedia. The section about it needs to have the correct flow to it. You don't get acquitted before the allegations have been made. Therefore, Wikipedia writes about any allegations, any court case and then any outcome.


 * If you don't agree with the content in that section, that is then a content dispute and you need to follow the follow the protocol for that and in the first instance you should use the article talk page to discuss any changes and wait for a consensus before making changes. The onus is on you to do this as you're disputing the content.Please remember to always be civil during any disputes and always assume good faith.-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to Unblock
provided for Wiki Page Craig McLachlan”. Allegations have been made, resulting in criminal charges that were subject to a full trial in the Magistrates Court which resulted in a Not Guilty verdict in respect of every allegation. As a matter of law, Craig McLachlan is innocent of those alleged offences'.

As those allegations have now been legal dismissed by a Court it is incorrect and defamatory to continue to allege them as true. The information on Wikipedia under “Sexual harassment allegations” reflects a range of media allegations and newspapers sources. When editing I wanted to show truth in the outcome of the allegations and criminal charges laid against McLachlan. The one line at the end of that section is “On 15 December 2020, McLachlan was acquitted of all charges”. It is certainly not a balanced.

After commencing a discussion on the talk page, 5 albert square failed to answer me prior to Ponyo/templates sending an immediate reply of intimidation that PNGChimbu would be blocked from editing. It was with good intention I was adding to the information about the not guilty verdict. It did not occur to me that there would be such a back lash with regard to that information from the Magistrates Court in Melbourne. I do not understand why that would be so!

McLachlan should have accomplishments, challenges and successes in line with those articles. He has received enough bad press over the past years to last a life time and he is not guilty of what the press have written. The page needs to maintain objectivity and independence, taking the sections beyond a media promotional tool. Had the editors made changes to the actual text, inserted and added my information to the one line instead of removing the factual basis of the not guilty verdict I would understand. However, removal of factual information relevant to the Legal Cases and deliberately blocking another editor is of concern. Again my understanding is Wikipedia is there for all editors to maintain the freedom of open editing.

I would appreciate if you would unblock my page PNGChimbu. For one editor to simply delete that with a reference to “edit war” is unacceptable and defies the guidelines of Wikipedia. I have no objection to editors working on information I provide. I have not made any radical changes to any other editors work and respect what they do. However, it seems I have added text that they do not want in the public arena. All relevant information and not an opinion, by one editor who does not agree with another, about factual and legal information about a living person should be accessible to all those who have access Wikipedia.

thank you for your assistance in my request to unblock my page PNGChimbu (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * PNGChimbu, please listen to what we've told you above. We've told you that if you're disputing the content of an article then you need to open a discussion on the article's talk page so a consensus can be reached. Looking at your previous edits, this isn't the only time your edits have been undone. You've been told more than once to gain consensus on the article talk pages before making edits like these. It's actually very worrying that you're continuing on with this behaviour as it's in clear breach of the Wikipedia behavioural guideline. Please listen to what other editors are telling you. If you carry on the way you're presently editing when you return, your blocks are only likely to get longer. Perhaps even indefinite.-- 5 albert square (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * (talk)

Why would I want to go to the talk page and have a discussion after your over-reaction about a paragraph added to the site and your messages to other editors. I have no doubt it will be set up with people who have been told I have entered "edit warring" when it was you you took the words down with immediate threats. A breach of the Wikipedia, oh please! If you had read it and altered it, moved it to where ever you wanted it to fit on the page I would understand but you went straight in deleted it and went on the attack to discredit me. Then your team decided to block me. The same thing happened on Nick McKenzie's page and three weeks later they realized what transparency meant and that media was not the third arm of law. The site was changed to give it balance and protect Nick from people who may think there was something to hide. I congratulated the editors for some great work. I suggest you take another look, I don't have time to play games on Wikipedia but let me just explain that a balance is necessary, media are not the third arm of the law. Allegations and truth are very different I have been working in the field of truth for a very long time. I have also been a donor for a long time to the Wikipedia Foundation so people like you can have the opportunity to do what you do! However, why would I donate, when you behave the way you do: because you do not agree with an opinion does not make you right. Blocking me makes no difference to me, in fact it saves me a great deal of valuable time. Good luck with your site I hope it is a credit to Craig McLachlan and not a media circus. PNGChimbu (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)