User talk:Truthguardian12

August 2012
Hello, I'm Bilby. I noticed that you made a change to an article, AWU scandal, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Bilby (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the main problem is that a YouTube video is not sufficiently reliable for this sort of content. If there is something in it, the media is likely to pick it up, in which case there will be something more reliable to build on later. - Bilby (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bilby,

I have noticed that you call Australia's elite journalists Andrew Bolt and Natalie O'Brien unreliable sources. For your information, I have Australian Masters in Media (specialisation journalism) degree. So, why don't you tone down your personal take and bias and let people edit the information such that it incorporates all sides to the story and leave conclusion to readers opposed to include parts worded such that the author transpires his conclusion, hey? Perhaps, step out of your little world of vanity and political conviction and take up a journalism degree if so keen....


 * Hi Truthguardian12. First, if I may, I'd like to apologise. I should have come here and explained why I had to revert some of your edits, but didn't. It is always an awful introduction to Wikipedia when changes made in good faith are removed, and worse when it isn't sufficiently explained as to why. I did try to explain in the edit summaries, but that is far from the best way of handling things. Unfortunately it was very early in the morning here, and I had been expecting a response from you on your talk page, but had to go to sleep before you were able to make one.
 * Anyway, it seems you've chosen a fairly controversial area on Wikipedia in which to start your editing. This particular article concerns living people, so there are some very strict policies on Wikipedia about how to handle this sort of issue, as there is a real risk of doing harm to the people concerned. In this case the situation is made even worse, as the story has been breaking too fast - things which were accepted as facts two days ago have been disproven or denied, and the nature of the issues is constantly changing. Wilson's "a week is a long time in politics" is an understatement for this particular article.
 * So the problem has been that you've been adding content as facts which have been subsequently denied. For example, when you wrote that "Julia Gillard may have breached Western Australian corporations law by her involvement in providing the Commisioner with the papers" you were relying on sources that predated her denial of writing or signing those papers. Thus presenting this as fact becomes a problem after her press conference, as she has denied responsibility, so it is now a case of it being alleged. Similarly, when you changed the material about Gordon to be his statement "I believed at the time that there was no explicit or indirect evidence that she was involved in any wrongdoing" you removed the "He confirmed in 2012 that was still his opinion", which was an important addition - on it's own, it looks like he might not still believe that to be the case, and the second claim is required to provide important context. You also wrote of "the firm's intention of sacking Ms Gillard and Mr Murphy", which is at odds with statements by both Gordon and the current managing director of the company - again, this can't be treated as a factual statement, and needs, if it is to be included, to be qualified. (Although in this case it was more a direction to further reading, which isn't something Wikipedia normally includes in that manner).
 * At any rate, the current sensitivity of this issue and the rate of change makes it difficult to say anything in the article with certainty. And I'm very happy to engage with you or anyone else about what to include in the article, and to defer to whatever the consensus is to do. Please take part in the discussion at Talk:AWU scandal - your expertise would be much appreciated, and more voices, from any perspective, will help everyone reach a consensus about how to tackle things. And once again, my apologies for not writing this sooner, and for having made your introduction to editing here so rough - hopefully it will be smoother in future. - Bilby (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Truthguardian, Thank you for your edits to the AWU scandal article - they seem well balanced and well researched. I have offered Bilby the opportunity to explain the nature of his editing related to Julia Gillard and the AWU scandal, and he has responded. See Talk:Julia_Gillard.

Please keep up the good work Truthguardian - but if you give up in frustration, I will understand that too :) Freebird15 (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What to do when you are reverted/welcome to Wikipedia!
Hi. I notice you are off to a somewhat rocky start here. Wikipedia's policies can be difficult to wade through for newcomers, and they often find their edits reverted, especially if they jump right into editing potentially controversial content. Wikipedia has fairly strict policies for content related to living persons, so you will find that any such article is held to higher standard. It appears part of the problem is that you are sourcing some of your edits to YouTube. As user-generated content, YouTube does not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source regardless of who is featured in a particualar video.

If you find your edits being reverted:

Do


 * Discuss the matter on the article's talk page, in this case it is Talk:AWU scandal
 * Make your case using logic but also basing it on Wikipedia policy

Don't


 * Engage in edit warring
 * attack the person who reverted you
 * brag about your credentials, which we can't verify without knowing your real identity anyway.

Generally it is best to follow the advice of WP:BRD. I have protected the article from editing in order to give some time for this matter to be sorted out. I think if you follow the advice I have given here you will find It a lot easier to get along here. Below is one of our standard welcome messages with links to help new users. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because we're new to Wikipedia doesn't mean we're new to life, Beeblebrox. :) Freebird15 (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by that, my advice is all WP-specific, how this person lives their real life is none of my concern. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Truthguardian12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style