User talk:SA surfer

Ugg boots
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've editing information in the Ugg boots article. There's no way these additions and removals are acceptable on Wikipedia without evidence (see WP:SOURCE). Note also that statements like "this will keep being deleted" are also unacceptable. Please be prepared to go slow on this as this article as been the target of extensive edit warring in the past. Start a topic about the Spencers on the Ugg boot talk page first and we'll see what sources we can come up with. You will find there are plenty of editors already familiar with the controversy about Ugg boot history. Present the sources and you will have sympathetic editors willing to help. Note also there are also a several users who clearly are unsympathetic to anything other than the idea that Ugg is a registered US trademark! At least one account was found to be paid by Deckers, so this article has a higher degree of scrutiny. Last thing... Be aware that persistently making edits which are reverted (even if they are technically incorrect) is also unacceptable on Wikipedia and can easily result in an editing block (see WP:3RR). Please discuss your changes on the talk page and gain consensus before making them again. Donama (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Donama.


 * We are trying to get the real truth out there about the origins of the ugg boot. We have researched business archives and interviewed many of the old surfers around in the 1960's. The trouble is a lot of these people have passed on including Charlie Spencer. Graeme was shown to be the most humble person in this situation just wanting his dad, the little man in the back shed pumping out uggs for the locals, to get the recognition he deserves. The people making the most noise about this have proven to be egotistical and narcissistic. These people are not computer literate and a big reason why big business has stamped out the truth. We don't mind if you have all these outrageous claims. Just leave the story about Charlie Spencer because many people know this to be the truth. Let people decide what they want to believe. We are just going by the first registration of the 'ugg' name in 1971 and the many people we have discussed this topic with. Can you please tell me how we can start a discussion page on this so we can capture the comments from the people who know the truth.


 * Kind Regards
 * SA Surfer — Preceding unsigned comment added by SA surfer (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi SA Surfer. I see your point. I had a quick look and found at least one reference to Charlie Spencer from a reputable source:
 * To start a talk page discussion about something, go to the Ugg boot article and click 'Talk' at the top left. Then when you're on the talk page, click 'New section'.
 * Cheers Donama (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Donama
 * Thank you for your reply and thank you for your understanding. People deserve the truth. Will I be blocked if I keep trying to get the truth out there about the 'ugg boot' origins on Wikipedia?
 * Kind Regards
 * SA Surfer — Preceding unsigned comment added by SA surfer (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes you will be blocked if you edit in a disruptive manner. Courtesy and working for consensus, especially on an article with a history like this one, will be much more likeley to result in information about the Spencer family connection being permanently in the article. It will take time and a lot of patience on your part, but it will be worth it! Donama (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok. But this is so wrong on a lot of levels. People deserve the truth. Can we leave the Charlie story for people to make their own decision? I will also leave all these other 2 paragraphs so people can decide for themselves.


 * 1. No you can't. Wikipedia isn't for telling everyone the absolute truth. Or opinions for that matter. It's for telling everyone what is verifiably known - facts. That's because it's an encyclopaedia not a blog. Sources for any fact must be cited and must be reputable (that is, at least published). You didn't do that. This is called original research on Wikipedia and is not okay. See WP:NOR. If you can make the effort to read the links I'm sending you, you will learn to edit in such a way that is going to be acceptable to all the people watching the article and satisfy a casual reader that the information is legit.
 * 2. You don't have to edit the article. You can just put the information you have on the talk page and see if someone else is willing to do the work to verify it and write it in an encyclopaedic way. Put a summary of all the verifiable sources about Charlie Spencer's role into the talk page section we created for you. See what response you get. Donama (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply Donama. I will do that. Is there a way to create a link for this thread? Kind Regards SA Surfer


 * This is the link: User talk:SA surfer Cheers Donama (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the link. I will be working hard to get everyone who knows the truth to post on this subject. It can be hard to motivate people to do this when they are in their twilight years but I am sure I can get a lot of people out there to speak up. Kind Regards SA surfer (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, the Ugg boots talk page thread for this is at Talk:Ugg boots. Donama (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ugg boots. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''Creating a new account does not change anything. Either discuss this material on the talk page or leave it alone. And please read WP:3RR'' Meters (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Ugg boots. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''If you keep doing this you will end up blocked. Discuss it on the talkpage.'' Meters (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ugg boots 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 talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''If you are also the IP you have broken 3RR. Even if you are not you are edit warring. I have started the talk page discussion for you. I have also asked for the page to be protected pending a discussion. You do not get to force completely unsourced content onto a page when it had been challenged. See WP:BRD'' Meters (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * To Meters. I have been speaking with Wikipedia representatives about this topic and she found a reference in a Sydney court case to Charlie Spencer. Please leave the truth because that is what people deserve. Not the outrageous claims of frauds and big corporate business.

Kind Regards SA Surfer — Preceding unsigned comment added by SA surfer (talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Stop editing the Ugg boot page, and propose changes on the talk page first or you will be blocked. Please familiarise yourself with WP:VERIFY (cite verifiable published resources for everything), WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV before attempting to add the information again. If you want to know more about how to cite sources, see WP:CITE. Donama (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Content disputes are discussed on the article's talk page. You will eventually be blocked if you continue this without discussing things. You have been told multiple time that there are problems with the content you have been adding.a It is not going to stay on the page in its current state. You can discuss the material on the article's talk page and attempt to reach a consensus on what the article should say  (be prepared to provide reliable sources for your claims)  or you can continue to edit war to add your completely unsourced claims over other editor's objections and requests to discuss it, in which case you will almost certainly be blocked. Your  choice.. Meters (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

To Meters. I have been talking to a representative from Wikipedia called Donama. She has researched and found reference to Charlie Spencer. Please leave Charlie's story because people need to know the truth. Just because these fraudsters like talking to newspapers does not make it the truth. Research yourself please. You cannot argue with Australian business records in the archives showing the very first registration of the term 'ugg' The many interviews from surfers stating too many similarities from unrelated sources have also proven this to be the truth. The history is a lot larger than a couple paragraphs. I will leave these outrageous claims but please leave Charlie's story because there are a lot of people out there that know this to be the truth. No financial gain required here, just the truth. Kind Regards SA Surfer

I do not understand how the truth can be disruptive. Let people decide what the truth is. They deserve it. SA Surfer
 * Please indent (one colon per tab) and sign your talk page posts (with ~ )
 * The page was protected by an admin, who also removed your content again. This is your chance to discuss the material on the talk page. Please do so. As I said, it's your choice. Discuss it, drop it, or continue edit warring and be blocked. Meters (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I am still trying to understand how this all works. Bit upset that you don't want the truth out there about this topic but I won't be dropping it. I will do as you ask. I have already spent about 20 years researching this and talking to a lot of people in the know. I could almost write a novel on the subject. How can I create a link for a thread on this topic? Kind Regards SA Surfer nowiki>SA surfer (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC):
 * Claiming that I "don't want the truth out there about this topic" is a complete misstatement of the situation, and is verging on a personal attack. I have no personal knowledge of or opinion on what the correct history is. My only concern is that the section contain neutrally worded, verifiable information. If there are reliable sources that support your claims there should be no problem including the material in the article. Unsourced material, or original research is not acceptable. And you might want to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
 * I don't understand your request for creating a link fol a thread on this subject. I have already told you that I have started the thread on Ugg boots's talk page. If you don't know how to find the talk page, it is at: Talk:Ugg boots and the particular thread is Talk:Ugg boots.
 * I'm done discussing this on your talk page. Comment on the article's talk page where all interested editors can see iand participate in the thread. Meters (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You have taken me completely out of context. I have found you to be extremely rude to me and I will put in a complaint. donama has been very helpful and polite in this situation. Your messages too abrupt for someone who is learning about the system.I said exactly the same thing to Donama and she understood where I was coming from. ThanksSA surfer (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was talking to Donama before you so I did not read your messages till later. You saying I am giving you a personal attack is a personal attack on me. Then trying to sabotage my very important discussion which is affecting many people in Australia's lives. I will deal with Donama in the future. Thanks Meters SA surfer (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One last question. How do I put in a complaint to Wikipedia management about a Wikipedia representative?SA surfer (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia etiquette
Nobody has told you, but to sign your comments, please use 4 tildes in a row (~ character). Also use colon to indent your answer to one more than the previous comment. Everyone is used to these two habits. Cheers Donama (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and tips SA surfer (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ugg boots 2
''Hi Donama. I have been having trouble with Meters (a wikipedia representative) who is deleting coversations in the talk discussion page about Charlie Spencer and ugg boots. These comments were from 6 weeks ago and I was just giving an update and he deleted all of my updated information including information about our Chicago lawyers releasing the first ugg boot registration. He is sabotaging this and is extremely rude and does not give any real reason for deleting my conversations. All i can think of is he is targeting me. Can you help please. This talk discussion was supposed to be an open discussion. Nothing to do with him SA surfer (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)''
 * Your comments haven't been deleted, just nested inside a box to show that you are an editor with a conflict of interest (you have declared it several times). There's nothing untoward going on. Please be aware of how a conflict of interest is viewed when editing an article like Ugg boots which has already been subject to intense edit warring by COI editors from the other side. See WP:COI. Donama (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I collapsed them because, as I said in my edit, they are a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. I would have been justified in deleting them, but I didn't since thisis a new user who apparently did not know any better. Meters (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your meetings with people in real life are not something that needs to go on a Wikipedia article talk page. Meters already asked you to check WP:NOTAFORUM. That will make it clearer. If you want a page to write anything you want (as long as its not a copyright violation—WP:COPYVIO—or potential libel about a living person—see WP:BLP), then write it on your own user page. Right here. And edit to your heart's content. The link will turn blue when you have made the first edit on the page. When you have encyclopaedic content ready to add to a Wikipedia article you can copy and paste as required. Donama (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Proper welcome!
Here is a proper formal welcome with a lot of resources to learn more about editing that you should have received earlier on! Donama (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Ugg boots, you may be blocked from editing. ''Stop posting this off-topic material on the talk page. The talk page is for discussing changes to the article. It is not a social media group where you can communicate with other people, it is not an archive, as you call it, and it is not a place to have general discussions about the topic. I collapsed some of your earlier posts, but since you continue to violate WP:NOTAFORUM I have deleted your most recent posts.'' Meters (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If and when you have reliable sources for changes to the article then provide the sources and propose your changes on the talk page. Editors with no conflicts of interest will determine what, if any, changes will be made to the article. Meters (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Meters. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ''Your statement that my "sabotage of Charlies talk page is affecting lives to the point of some people losing their livelihoods" is a personal attack. Your statements that I am targeting you and harassing you are personal attacks. Stay off my talk page. If you make any more such attacks on me or other editors anywhere I will ask to have you blocked.

If you make any more wildly WP:NOTAFORUM talk page posts, or any more accusations about people being frauds and stealing ideas and causing people to commit suicide this is likely to end up at WP:ANI.'' Meters (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)