User talk:Tokyo Oz

Mark Willacy
Why the sole interest in this article and nothing else in Wikipedia? LibStar (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mark Willacy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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.

February 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Mark Willacy. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * I edit lots of articles, you are a single purpose editor who has been involved in disruptive editing, for example, the sources does not say "more than a dozen Middle East countries" yet you keep reverting it, further edits like this are WP:VANDALISM and you may be blocked. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Mark Willacy - Disruptive editing - August 2021
I've rollbacked both of your edits to Mark Willacy as disruptive editing, the first edit was content removal which removed both references and did not include an edit summary. Your second edit added unnecessary puffery, adding weasel words like most prestigious and unnecessary irrelevant details like (just weeks before he was killed in an airtrike)[sic]. My revision of the page is attempting to remove that, if there are particular issues with the article and it's accuracy, lets discuss on the article talk page.

Another thing that worries me is why you have an interest in only editing the Mark Willacy article, can you confirm if you are, or are related to Mark Willacy, or have any personal connection to this article?

Aeonx (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Mark Willacy - September 2021
I've reverted both of your edits to Mark Willacy. Regarding the Annual Walkley Awards, according to The Walkley Foundation which issues them, there are three "major category" awards: Gold Walkley, Outstanding Contribution to Journalism, Nikon-Walkley Australian Press Photographer of the Year. All the other awards are relatively minor annual national awards which are barely notable (most national annual minor awards wouldn't get mentioned on Wikipedia at all). As for the book review, it's not directly related to Mark Willacy, it's just a comment about his 3rd book, not the author. Isolated book reviews are rarely mentioned in Wikipedia author articles as they are just opinion and often create WP:BIAS. Aeonx (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Failure to discuss reverted changes to Mark Willacy - October 2021
@Tokyo Oz, you have reverted both my edits to the Mark Willacy article:, which I made in response to your comments on my talkpage, here: , and I note you have not discussed or provided any further comments. I have posted on the Mark Willacy talkpage and tagged you about the issues I have identified with the article, which I have already explained to you on your talkpage. Please discuss your concerns with my edits to the article on the article talkpage and contribute to collaborative dispute resolution, your accusations earlier on my talkpage that I "have an agenda" is not helpful and offensive. Please also take a moment to review the Wikipedia policy on conduct, a summary is available here: WP:CONDUCT. Regards, Aeonx (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume ownership of articles, you may be blocked from editing. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. There is no consensus for your fluffy remarks, you have not tried to obtain consensus, nor a WP:3O, your edit does not improve the article, it is just MOS:PUFFERY. You must discuss changes and obtain consensus. Aeonx (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aeonx I am happy to discuss. However, your editing has been disruptive, inaccurate and borderline obsessive. Why remove independent media reviews of the books? On what basis are you doing that? The fact that you only removed the review of the military book suggests an agenda. You also made inaccurate edits regarding the Gold Walkley winning report. I am happy to obtain consensus, but you must practice what you preach.

Tokyo Oz, You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. I question why you say my editing has been "obsessive", the only edits you make on Wikipedia are to the Mark Willacy article, it has been asked at least twice (by others and myself), as to why you only edit this article? Are you in someway related to Mark - including through business dealings, such as Mark's publisher? Secondly, I have already explained why the irrelevant cherry-picked book reviews have been removed. The Gold Walkley award is quite clearly awarded to the team not just to Mark, that's what the article states. Whether he "led" the team isn't clearly stated, and I question it's relevance. My edits have been to remove MOS:PUFFERY which I have stated many times to you, here, in the edit summaries, on my talkpage, and in the article talkpage. The best place to discuss the article is on the article talkpage, here: Talk:Mark_Willacy. You also should to sign your talkpage edits using. I will not warn you again, discuss the changes on the article talkpage and get a consensus, I have asked for a WP:3O to join the discussion to avoid further Edit warring, until then I suggest you articulate your case on the article talkpage and do not further edit the article. Aeonx (talk) 06:37, 16 October 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. Thank you. Aeonx (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. You seem to have removed my comments explaining my edits. Can you please restore them so my justifications are freely available. Thank you. Tokyo Oz (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Tokyo Oz. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Mark Willacy, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why the sole interest in editing one article? Do you have a connection to Mark Willacy? LibStar (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring at Mark Willacy
Hello Tokyo Oz. You've been warned for edit warring on this article per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you edit the article again without getting a prior consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. It also appears you have never responded to the claim you have a WP:COI on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Mark Willacy article (November 2021)
I have revised my edit to the Mark Willacy article and better captured criticism of his journalism in a separate section rather than specifically to his book (althouhh I have read his 3rd book, and it IS definitely relevant), and it is creates balance in the article noting the vast majority of the article simply discusses awards he has won (some of the which I added).

However, the main reason I am writing on your talkpage (again), is because you have been warned about editing the article. Wikipedia does have an edit-revert process, which you can read about on the article talkpage (the header includes links to relevant policy), whilst I accept you disagree with my edit, you should articulate further on the article talkpage in reference to my section on bias and balance.

Also I ask you to please note the concerns raised about WP:COI, and respond or declare if you do (or don't) have a conflict of interest regarding the Mark Willacy article. Aeonx (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I also second the question about you responding regarding your possible connection to Mark Willacy. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)