Jackamarra
Welcome!
edit
|
I would also encourage giving a read to wp:NPOV, and a review of your recent edits to Indigenous Australians in that light.- Sinneed 02:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop adding material that breaches our policy relating to neutral edits. Thank you.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 09:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
October 2009
edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mabo v Queensland (No 2), you will be blocked from editing. for continued inclusion of non-neutral point of view edits, for which various minor cautions have already been provided --VirtualSteve need admin support? 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Rolf Harris, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --VirtualSteve need admin support? 00:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VirtualSteve need admin support? 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VirtualSteve need admin support? 09:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Jackamarra (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My position is I am making valid edits to the (a) Indigenous Australians page (b) Rolf Harriss bio page (a) Indigenous Australian history - you falsely and repeatedly post throughout the page "Europe colonized Australia - wrong, Britian colonized Australia - an easy verifiable fact, and thus I sought to correct your repeated inserts of misinformation. You purposely omit in the same page Indigenous Australians were invaded by the british or invaded period, preferring instead to use the quaint misnomer "settled" Again, a cursory check of the facts demonstrate Australia was invaded by the british in 1788, slaughtering Indigenous Australians for the ensuing century. Acknowledging this historic fact, though shameful to anglophiles, is critical to a comprehensive and genuine understanding of Indigenous Australia and indeed contemporary Australian history. You are wrong for distorting this history and you are wrong for blocking my account for editing your falsehoods and omissions. (b) Rolf Harriss bio page - again you omit to correctly identify his music as racist, preferring instead to use the diffuse and watered-down term "controversial". This does not educate the viewer to the exact nature of the "controversy" which of course is racism against Aboriginal Australia, specifically the verse "let me abos (Aboriginals) go loose bruce". Arguably, Harriss is most [in]famous for this ditty and thus to do his bio page justice the very racist element of this ditty (which condones if no encourages murder of Indigenous Australians) needs to be acknowledged. Harriss himself has confessed to the racist theme of his music. Therefore you are wrong for omitting the fact the most well known song by Rolf Harriss is a racist and hurtful ditty. You are wrong for blocking me for pointing out this established and easy verifiable fact. I look forward to your counterclaims. In the meantime I will develop my own wiki pages on similar subjects to ensure viewers get a full and unbiased picture of real racist Australia and its Anglostralians. Jackamarra
Decline reason:
Yours is a single-purpose account, which means you're at Wikipedia for only one purpose (and that purpose is something other than the creation of a free encyclopedia for the world to share). That means that you have to be extra careful to avoid adding your personal opinions to the encyclopedia. If you want to be sure that the articles in Wikipedia reflect the experiences of aboriginal Australians, I think that's a reasonable goal. Your current way of doing that - adding emotionally loaded words like 'racist' and 'invasion,' words that are not neutral, is not working as you can see. Instead, you want to focus on facts that are missing from the articles, and introduce those facts using neutral phrasing. If you request unblocking again, make sure you explain your strategy for editing differently in the future- as you can see, the strategy you have been using does not achieve your goals. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (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.
Jackamarra (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your 'denial' is wrong. Your claim the facts of "racism" and "invasion" as it relates to Aboriginal Australia is a matter of "personal opinion" is not only wrong, it borders on wilful ignorance. To deny the fact of racism and invasion by the british is not only a matter of opinion it is a continuation of racism by witholding and distorting documented history. The wiki page in question is Indigenous Australians - please explain then how this page can withhold any mention of the significant historical facts of british invasion and genocide and yet remain protected from my edits? Racism and genocide may be "emotionally loaded" terms for you, but your fragility does not alter the fact racism, invasion and genocide by the british against Aboriginal Australia is a documented reality. You make the spurious and highly selective claim my edits are "emotionally loaded". I wonder how the wiki page describes Nazism and its crimes against humanity - are the "emotionally loaded" terms genocide and invasion censored from this page? Of course not! But when it comes to Australia and the anglosphere, the words invasion, genocide etc are off-limits right. This is not a case of "emotionally loaded" edits, this is a case of anglophile censorship deeply ashamed of their racist crimes against Indigenous Australia. Its a case of wiki authors subjectively and intentionally diluting and distorting facts and history to misinform viewers. This is worng. This is moral cowardice at its worst
Decline reason:
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.
Jackamarra (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wow thanks for that baseless pointless review: profound. Wrong again! I refer admins back to the wiki page in question: INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS. A sub-heading on this page reads "POST-EUROPEON SETTLEMENT". This heading is fundamentally wrong on 2 counts, as follows: (1) the word "settlement" suggests Australia's was not previously occupied and or "settled" prior to the invasion by the british in 1788. A cursoy examination of Australian history proves otherwise. Australia was "settled" for 40 000 years by Aboriginal folk. Much anthroplogical evidence is available to prove this, including the very existence of the Aboriginal folk themselves. To claim Australia was "settled" by whites, irrespective how subtle the claim, is not only factually incorrect, it smacks of racism. In the 1990s the High Court of Australia ruled against the racist myth Australia was "terra nullis" (empty) a fact ironically noted in the same Wiki article. (2) Sticking with the same sub-heading, the claim Europeons were somehow the principal colonizers of Australia against all the contrary evidence, past and present is bizarre. The british invaded, colonized Australia to establish the current anglocentric Commonwealth administration today. An administration which up until today is still by law beholden to the british queen. The colonization and appropriation of Australia has always been a british affair. Europeons, along with Asians were not allowed entry en-masse until the early 1900s, some 120 years following british colonization. There is no historical basis to suggest Europeons as opposed to british colonized or indeed "settled" Australia. Therefore the sub-heading POST-EUROPEON SETTLEMENT has no factual, historical and anthropoligical basis whatsoever. At best this entry is misleading, at worst it is racist and should be corrected, as indeed I attempted to do.
Decline reason:
There is not a single word there that addresses your block and what steps you will take to correct your behavior if you were to be unblocked. As FisherQueen points out below, you are running out of opportunities to properly request an unblock. This is a warning that further abuse of the unblock template will result in the loss of your ability to edit this page. TNXMan 03:35, 25 October 2009 (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.
.
This is not a reason for unblocking; it is an example of the kind of rhetoric that made your block necessary. Since you are running out of block requests, I'll give you a hint: successful block requests usually include (a) clear demonstration that you understand the reason for your block, and (b) a clear, specific plan for editing differently in the future. Your requests so far indicate that (a) you don't understand why you are blocked, and (b) if unblocked, would edit in exactly the same ways. That's why you aren't getting the responses you might like. If your goal is to battle against racism, you should probably do that on your blog. If your goal is to make helpful contributions to Wikipedia, your current edits are not helping you achieve that goal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Jackamarra (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If by understanding the reasons for the block, you mean my repeated attempts to correct wanton misinformation and untruths on the Indigenous Australian page, then the reasons are crystal clear. This block is about a very sensitive and shameful stain on the anglosphere / british australia conscience - the secret genocide of Indigenous Australians. I can understand the aversion by anglophile admins such "Fisher Queen" to the disclosure of this historic fact, its a bit like German admins controlling the page on Nazism, a total lost cause. I will refer this to "Wiki mediation" thus your vacuous biased replies which have not yet addressed a single scholarly point in my appeals in support of my edits, are not needed.
Decline reason:
Due to continued abuse of the unblock template, you are no longer able to edit this page. TNXMan 03:10, 27 October 2009 (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.
- I've been to England twice. I liked it. The sheep were pretty. I guess that makes me an "anglophile?" Not sure what that has to do with your following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)