MrFluffster

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, MrFluffster, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 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, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Labor Right, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Hello, I'm David J Johnson. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to One Nation Conservatives (caucus) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. David J Johnson (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Virtuous Pedophiles. Serious WP:BLP violation Knitsey (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Hello, I'm JayBee00. I wanted to let you know that your recent contribution to Retail and Fast Food Workers Union has been undone because it did not appear constructive and was in breach of WP rules about Neutral point of view content, Verifiability, No original research and Vandalism. Wikipedia is not an opinion forum. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. JayBee00 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The RAFFWU is not a legally registered union. Saying that it is is a violation of WP rules about neutral points of view.

I am willing to accept a compromise where it calls the RAFFWU a “organisation”, an “association” or a “guild” MrFluffster (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

RAFFWU isn't somehow an illegal union just because you might personally believe that. Your personal belief doesn't have any particular standing as far as WP articles go, certainly doesn't amount to any kind of reliable source and verified information in accordance with WP policy.

And the fact some unions in Australia aren't registered with Fair Work Australia, or affiliated with the ACTU or the Labor Party, doesn't somehow mean they're not unions. So no, what you're wanting to have inserted into this article is in violation of WP rules. Also, the dictionary definition of a union is pretty clear and it doesn't require government registration. JayBee00 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It most assuredly means that they are not real unions. The role and power of workers unions in Australia is entirely built on Australia’s legal system which grants them legal powers. So no, this is not at all related to personal belief, this is built on the fact that the RAFFWU does not have the same powers as a legally registered union such as the SDA or the AWU.

As such, being a legally registered union by the Fair Work Commision is what should ultimately define what is or isn’t a union, and the RAFFWU does not fit this criteria.

I am not in violation of WP rules, it is in-fact the current version of the article that is, for spreading false or misleading information about the RAFFWU. I am happy for you to call it an “organisation”, an “association” or a “guild” MrFluffster (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

There are various unions that operate without government registration, that's an easily verifiable fact. No matter how you word it, statements that are based on nothing except your personal belief, and are contradicted by the actual established evidence (most obviously by the dictionary definition of a union, which makes it clear unions don't somehow require government registration in order to be defined as unions) have no standing within Wikipedia articles. Period. Whether or not you might like the definition of a union to be different than it is and more restrictive, to only include unions that have government registration, no matter how much you might want that to be so, it doesn't mean Wikipedia has to be changed in accordance with your own belief, or that your personal unsubstantiated belief somehow amounts to verified reliable NPOV content, it clearly doesn't. JayBee00 (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a legal fact. A core value at outlined in the Fair Work Act (2009) (Link: https://www.fwc.gov.au/registered-organisations/find-registered-organisation), is bargaining in good faith, and misrepresentation is a violation of good faith bargaining and can result in legal issues. It is important to highlight this so that any prospective member knows what they can and cannot get from the union, or in this case a non-union association. To not do so would be legally considered false or misleading claims by the Australian Consumer & Competition Commission (ACCC) (Link: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/advertising-and-promotions/false-or-misleading-claims) and be subject to legal repocussions. Arguing that this is biased is not a valid argument in any sense. This is a matter of law. I would put it to you that you're actually the one that is biased. MrFluffster (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it's clearly not "a legal fact" at all, it's just your unsupported personal word continuously repeated in different ways without any evidence. And the fact you haven't tried at any stage to present any genuine sourced information corroborating your claims, further reinforces the point. Repetition of editing which is clearly just a personal opinion or desire, not supported by anything that could be remotely described as NPOV reliably-sourced information, is clearly against WP policy about Neutral point of view content, Verifiability, No original research and Vandalism, and you do not have any kind of right of exemption from WP policy.

For that matter, if your claims were actually somehow "legal fact", as you would seemingly have me believe, then RAFFWU and a number of other unions would have been prosecuted already before now for somehow violating Australian law by calling themselves a union. Obviously that hasn't happened and it's not going to happen, because the law here in Australia very clearly doesn't work the way you're now claiming it somehow does.

Also, if Wikipedia actually operated as you evidently want it to, according to this proven-false-a-thousand-times definition of a union, then every other union which has a WP page and currently operates outside of the FWA umbrella in Australia would be excluded from being categorised as a union in WP content too, not just specially RAFFWU, of course. And that's clearly not going to happen either.

And once again, the dictionary definition of a union is very clear, it says nothing about a union somehow needing government registration in order to be called a union, because there is no such requirement. Read the dictionary. JayBee00 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I did source my claims and you are saying its unsupported and unsourced?

You are the one being a wikipedia troll here MrFluffster (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You are telling lies I did source read my previous messages and do not try and vandalise wikipedia by saying its NPOV when I literally sourced it!

This is the height of dishonesty MrFluffster (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Other wikipedia pages of the sort where people do claim that they are unions when they are not they will also need to be changed MrFluffster (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you posted two links and are now seemingly claiming they said something they don't in fact say at all. I checked. Your ACCC link doesn't include any content supporting your claim that unions which are operating without govt registration are somehow making false or misleading claims or are somehow subject to any legal repercussions. Your FWC link doesn't include any such content or anything remotely approximating to such content either. So that clearly isn't a sourced, evidence-based argument, in fact that would be accurately defined as hand-waving.

And you haven't provided any sourcing for any of your repetitious WP:OR editing on Retail and Fast Food Workers Union or now on Australian Unemployed Workers' Union, I'm quite sure you know that too. Do you actually need me to screenshot your own attempted edits on those articles and post that back to you? This is really clear bad faith engagement. And despite multiple warnings now, you haven't so much as attempted to make any case for your editing within either article's "Talk" page either. Just continued to repeat the same disruptive edits. JayBee00 (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually in Australia it has everything to do with it. As an unrecognised union does not have the same legal powers as one that is. This would be like someone with a legal qualification misrepresenting themselves as a lawyer. There’s a specific process to become a lawyer and this process will change depending on the country, but there is a legal process and that’s important.

Using the term correctly under Australian law is important as it’s under Australian law that this organisation functions. People want to use Wikipedia to get accurate information, a prospective client or member would incorrectly make the assumption that RAFFWU is a trade union, when it’s not. Legal functionality is important, it should not be misrepresented because your opinion is that the law does not matter. The law does matter. MrFluffster (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Your unsubstantiated word, based on nothing at all that I can see, about legal issues - and I'm guessing you're not a lawyer - and your unsubstantiated word about what the definition of a union is, in direct contradiction of the established dictionary definition of a union, most certainly has no place in an encyclopedia whose central policy is that content of articles should be based on clear NPOV reliable sources, not anyone's unbacked opinion. I think that's an understatement really. No amount of repetition changes this. JayBee00 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The legal definition in Australia supersedes a dictionary definition as this article is about an Australian organisation which you claim is a trade union. It's not really relevant to the discussion. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but I'll be sticking to the facts. Again, this information needs to be accurate and informative, not ideological. If someone were to read this article they should not be given a false impression on protections and functions of a group they may or may not join. I don't need to be a lawyer to tell you this, you seem to be trying to attack my character rather than sticking to the facts. Attacking the messenger rather than addressing the facts. The organisation is not recognised as a trade union under the Fair Work Act, thus it does not have the powers of a trade union, and anyone joining the organisation needs to know the functionality of said organisation and what it can or cannot do. The consumer needs to know what they're paying for. To do so otherwise would fall under false or misleading claims under the ACCC. These are simply facts of the matter and you've provided no facts to the contrary, merely your own bias and rhetoric. The sources provided were official Australian government sources. If you're going to claim these sources are wrong, I hope you've got some good evidence to the contrary that's better than a definition from an online dictionary which has no legal basis. I am not expressing an opinion, I am alerting you to the facts. You are the one relying solely on opinion. This needs to go to admin because we're simply at an impasse and you refuse to acknowledge the facts. The existing justification on the page contradicts Australian law, it is inadequate and misleading. The evidence that I've provided above  trumps an arbitrary dictionary definition. I am happy to justify this to a moderator. MrFluffster (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I made the point clear enough on many occasions before now, but I'll try to make it somewhat more clear than it already is. The only source for this content and these claims is you. You are the only source for the claims you are making. Read Wikipedia policy about No Original Research. It applies to you just like it applies to any other Wikipedia user. You are not exempt from that, no matter how much you might believe that your unsourced claims are somehow correct.

I don't need to provide the sourced evidence for you. You need to provide the sourced evidence. Otherwise your edits are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Period. JayBee00 (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you really believe that you and anything you might choose to type is or should be considered to be reliable NPOV sourced evidence as per Wikipedia policy. Honestly, sorry, no, that's not the case. That's not how Wikipedia policy works. I really don't know how much more simply I can say this.

Also... you're trying to now project onto me and claim, again with zero evidence, that I'm somehow the one trying to assert things based purely on opinion? What the actual.... Anyone who might read this Talk page or reads through your edits can clearly see that's not the case. I'm sorry but that's an absurd and bad faith response.

And posting links and claiming that they say what you're saying when they don't, doesn't somehow amount to any kind of evidence either. As I said, what that is is hand-waving, not evidence-based argument. No doubt why you haven't even sought to quote any such text from those links that you claim support your assertion, because I dare say you know there is no such text. JayBee00 (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

And yes, if you want to make pronouncements about what is or is not legal fact and expect anyone to automatically accept those pronouncements without any actual sourced evidence provided, then you would need to be a lawyer qualified in that field of law, I think it's fair to say. And you're obviously not.

Saying the word "facts" over and over doesn't change anything. Trying to accuse me of "bias" without any evidence at all doesn't change anything either.

And that's clearly projection as well. I have no connection to RAFFWU whatsoever. Whereas it's very clear you have a bias against that union and want people to be deterred from joining it. Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for this sort of campaigning. If that's your main reason for being active on WP, then you would seemingly classify as being WP:NOTHERE - i.e. not here to build the encyclopedia, but rather to advance these sorts of political agendas. That's not what Wikipedia is for.

And before you seek to project that onto me and claim again without evidence that I'm somehow the one doing that, well, I've been a WP user for 4 years, have edited dozens of pages since I've been a user and at no time have I ever given cause for anyone to warn me about any possible disruptive editing, let alone any issue of possible vandalism. No such warnings ever about me, or any other form of such cautioning ever from any registered WP user in fact.

Whereas I can see three separate previous warnings about issues of vandalism and disruptive editing involving you, posted here on your Talk page by other users, including multiple high-level warnings by more experienced users than myself, users with admin rights in fact, well before I came here and began warning you about such issues. So you've now been warned by four different users about vandalism and you've only even been a WP user for seven months. JayBee00 (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Retail and Fast Food Workers Union. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Again, edits to articles and repetition of such edits, without factual corroboration, based on nothing except personal opinion, are in breach of WP policy regarding Neutral point of view content, Verifiability, No original research and Vandalism. This is a second warning. JayBee00 (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to edit “Union” to “Association”,”Workers advocacy group” or anything of the sort and claiming that it is is not in good faith MrFluffster (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You are literally trying to impose your personal unsubstantiated belief on WP content through repetition. That's not what Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia, is about. You don't get to have your personal unsupported belief treated as though it's somehow NPOV, reliably sourced evidence when it's clearly nothing of the sort. It's just your unsubstantiated word continuously repeated.

No matter how many times you might attempt to repeat the same editing, you don't have some sort of special right to be excluded from WP policy about Neutral point of view content, Verifiability, No original research and Vandalism. The policy on each issue is very clear and it applies to you in the same way as it applies to everyone else on WP. Your editing is clearly completely unsourced and you haven't tried to provide any evidence to back it up either here or in the article "Talk" page. JayBee00 (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What personal unsubstantiated belief and I trying to impose MrFluffster (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Your belief that a union operating without government registration is somehow illegal and somehow not a union, obviously. Lots of rhetoric, lots of repetition, no evidence, let alone legitimate sourced evidence. And of course, no attempt at all by you to try to make a case for your claims within the relevant article "Talk" pages either. Relying on empty repetition to force edits that are clearly against WP policy. If I need to escalate this to notify WP admins, I will. JayBee00 (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Escalate it all you want, I provided clear evidence for my claim

Nor did I say, ever, onn my talk or on the article that it was “illegal” MrFluffster (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh please, "not legal" means illegal, there's no point doing semantics. And your unsubstantiated word is not "clear evidence", or evidence at all, regardless of the volume of repetition or how many different forms of wording. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion forum. JayBee00 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not semantics at all, read the context

Call the admin all you want to, infact please do, as i dot know how to do so mysekf MrFluffster (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, when I'm back on a PC again, I intend to seek admin assistance. Also... you're now seriously claiming that your having said "not legal" instead of "illegal", somehow isn't semantics, even though "not legal" and "illegal" are to all intents and purposes the same thing? Come on...JayBee00 (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Not in this context the context matters MrFluffster (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Again on No original research, and I directly quote from the page in question stating Wikipedia policy:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material — such as facts, allegations, and ideas — for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."

In other words, you would have to be able to provide actual quotes from reliable NPOV sources directly related to the subject of the article, quotes which directly (not indirectly by some sort of personal interpretation either, but directly) support your claims.

You haven't made any attempt to do that, as anyone can see if they read through this Talk page or check your edit history otherwise. I have to suspect that's because you also know there are no such quotes from any reliable NPOV sources that support these claims.

And in fact, you didn't try to include any sourcing with your article edits at all, reliable or otherwise, as anyone would be able to confirm for themselves by checking the edit history of both of those articles.

Hence, again, those edits are WP:OR, do not meet Wikipedia standards of verifiability, are defined by Wikipedia as vandalism, and engaging in edit-warring, seeking to unilaterally impose such edits through repetition, is also particularly emphatically defined by Wikipedia as disruptive.

I've checked all these WP policy articles closely and double-checked, that is a reasonable accurate summary of how Wikipedia policy applies here. JayBee00 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop any further disruptive editing.

• When engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, the appropriate steps are to discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or in this case, the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union's talk page, and also the Australian Unemployed Workers' Union's talk page, and seek consensus. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you have been at Retail and Fast Food Workers Union and Australian Unemployed Workers' Union, you risk being blocked from editing. JayBee00 (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Fourth warning. You may be blocked from editing if you continue to post disruptive edits on Wikipedia. As at Retail and Fast Food Workers Union, and more recently also at Australian Unemployed Workers' Union. You have been warned now four times that your edits have been disruptive and are WP:OR, since no sourced information has been provided for them, either from reliable NPOV sources or even from an unreliable source, aside from such edits contradicting existing reliable NPOV sourced evidence provided within each article, and also plentiful reliable NPOV content on this subject which is readily available elsewhere otherwise. You have been warned that these edits are in breach of WP policy about verifiability, and that these edits constitute vandalism.

You have also been advised to seek to build consensus for any editing you might wish to make on these pages, by engaging at the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union's talk page, and also the Australian Unemployed Workers' Union's talk page, since you're evidently also seeking to make the same virtually identical WP:OR editing there as well now, but you haven't yet even tried to argue your case on either "Talk" page, rather have chosen to just repeat the same such article edits continuously. Even here on your own "Talk" page you have provided no factual arguments with identifiable sourced evidence to justify your edits, but rather continued to repeat the same unsupported opinions while also further repeating the same WP:OR article edits and edit-warring. This is not appropriate on WP.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What it is not is an anarchy, a forum for free speech or otherwise a vehicle for anyone's opinions, it has a clear no original research policy, and its decision-making process is based on consensus, not unilateral spontaneous decisions by any individual. JayBee00 (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at John Flowers (politician), you may be blocked from editing. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 11:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)