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
Blocked
[edit]
would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Ozbroz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Nick-D, Wiki posting is brand new for me - what is soapboxing? ... and is everything I wrote "soapboxing"? I am not clear, but willing to learn. BTW: I thought that CanberraBulldog was a bit over the top to accuse me of some kind of edit war on the main article, I just did not appreciate that there was history to look at which would show where that original post came from and its context - this is new to me after all! Also - is another user freely allowed to accuse people like that? In any case, I did realise nearer the end that my tone of writing read emotively, so if you can please advise which parts of my "Talk" page posting were not policy-compliant please let me know so I can avoid that mistake again - and be kind - I am new to all this after all !! I have not set out to be a bad Wiki citizen. ozbroz! Ozbroz (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
One request open at a time, thanks. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- 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)
Ozbroz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thanks Nick, or the reviewer? I hope the posted comments will still be visible to the reviewing admin, please keep me informed, especially about why I was blocked - also, please excuse my "newb" ignorance; Also I was wondering how come I am accused by CanberraBulldog of being "a relative of Sue's and the person who has been changing items in the article without sourcing!!!..." and he reckons I am Sue's son! "... just a rehash of the inquiry that Sue's son (you, I think)..." ...what CanberraBulldog said is not true nor helpful, isn't that just being provocative and off-topic? - as to self-criticism - I think I am getting the hang of this - correct me where wrong - but the "Talk" page is meant for a more dispassionate style of reporting of information published by others, and to at least avoid the appearance of having a point of view oneself about the subject matter - is that getting a little closer? On re-reading I can see that I was making strong statements (based on my reading of the article in the Sunday Times) which could have been interpreted as a rant (hence CanberraBulldogs response I suppose) and I could have been more sensitive (tentative) and avoided that - on the other hand, I think in my posting - the actual content of my posting - I have really said little that ought to warrant blocking? After all the poster named "Anotherclown" invited me to post the references I was making - I thought "Anotherclown" meant to post to "Talk" some of the content from the Sunday Times article (which I did)? I did try to add (only) the article reference and messed that up, and stated so, I was reluctant to attempt any modification of the main article in the first place - and would not have done so but for the encouragement of "Anotherclown" - I see someone has fixed my reference attempt so that is good anyway ! ozbrozOzbroz (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As one of the few who can look at what you wrote that we had to hide from all but those of us with that authority, I can say that this block is eminently justified. CanberraBulldog's accusations may or may not conform with policy, but that's irrelevant to the fact that you obviously have only one reason for establishing an account, and that's to push an agenda on one or two articles specifically. So for the time being I heartily endorse this block. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ozbroz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you Daniel. Sorry - I meant no harm and misunderstood. :I am new to Wiki posting process and was confused by some things. Being new and my first attempt at engaging in the process, it would seem "single purpose", but I am just a first time user.
I had only been a user on Wiki for 5 hours before getting blocked without any warning - so I have since spent the time needed to find out why in order to avoid future mistakes.
It is true that I am at present interested in the Jack Sue article; the Sunday Times report prompted me to try engaging in the Wiki process. When I saw the except that had been posted by CanberraBulldog I had misunderstood it to be an unreferenced attack on the article without citation or signature. I did not even know (at that stage) that there as a history to look at. It is a rueful thing, I was in the process of trying to redress that (by retracting comments) when I got blocked.
- I did not set out to flout any Wiki ethics, and I promise to be a careful and good Wiki citizen in the future.
- I did entirely misunderstand the purpose of the Talk forum - I did treat it more like an open newsgroup discussion forum, and so yes I posted my (indignant) point of view about that excerpt that CanberraBulldog posted - instead of sticking to facts that could be cited and referenced. Again, I misunderstood how to use this page, and I misunderstood the intention of the other posters in that regard. I also made the error of making comments about "the living" that do not belong in this forum, and I unreservedly apologise for that error, however well intentioned.
- I promise to pay close attention to anything I write in the future, as I have since spent time reading what is expected, and I promise to be very careful to stick to references and citations. I also apologise to the poster named "Anotherclown" as I misunderstood this posters role - I thought it was a sarcastic attack - I did not realise at first where".Anotherclown" was "coming from" - but it was about then it began to dawn on me that I had misunderstood - then before I could do anything about it CanberraBulldog waded in and was posting at the same time that I was trying to respond to ". Anotherclown" in a concillatory tone. Its been a good learning experience for me, and I can only affirm that I now understand much better what is going on and how to participate in this process. I think I know clearly how to do that now. For example, sticking to facts that can be cited, not making uncited notes, and avoiding any comments whatsoever about the motives of others.
- I truly get it; It will not happen again - I am a new user trying to make a first time contribution - and managed to make a proper mess of it within a very short space of time - I will leave it all alone for now and check back in a week, because I do want to participate in a manner acceptable to everyone
BTW: ALERT - the reference link "http://www.scribd.com/doc/48076498/Silver-vs-Jack-Wong-Sue-Report" on the main article seems to have been defaced !! Users should be warned...
Decline reason:
As oversighted edits are involved, this is not suitable for action by ordinary admins. Please direct any further appeals to the ban appeals subcommittee by email. T. Canens (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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
[edit]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)