Wikitout

November 2013

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Stockton Beach. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 18:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Stockton Beach, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 18:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add your own personal analysis to articles. All content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable and should be supported by inline citations from a reliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note, Wikipedia editors are not considered to be to be reliable sources and edits such as this, and this, based on the content and your edit summaries, are considered to be original research, which is not permitted by policy. please stop adding original research to the article. Content that you add must be backed up by reliable sources. Call it hearsay all you want,[1] verifiable content always has greater weight than unsourced original research. Removal of cited, verifiable content,[2] is unacceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You really need to stop this and start discussing your edits, as content that you are adding is original research that is contradicted by multiple reliable sources. If you refuse to engage in discussion you may find yourself blocked from editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:Stockton Beach#Original research. I strongly urge you to discuss your edits there. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit demonstrates the problem with original research. As the content that you removed stated, "Attempts to refloat the ship were unsuccessful" which is quite correct. Had they been successful, the stern section would not now be on the beach. That the bow section was refloated does not mean the attempts were successful, as part of the ship is still there. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikitout, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Wikitout! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Stockton Beach, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. AussieLegend (✉) 21:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you are apparently unwilling to discuss your tendentious edits, and refuse to stop adding original research, I feel a final warning is warranted. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your latest edit summary at the article seems disingenuous.[3] You clearly know how to edit the article so you can post a response. As for "what would the point be", the point is you're posting contrary to Wikipedia policy and if you don't stop, you may be blocked from editing altogether. You simply cannot add original research to the article. Everything that you have added needs to be reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It really does not matter who you are, what you've done or who you claim has interviewed you,[4] you cannot add content that is the result of your own investigations. All content must be supported by third party sources. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources unless they are an acknowledged expert in a field. "Wikitout" is not. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summaries

Edit summaries like this are inappropriate. Edit summaries should describe the edits that you made. "Look out the window dopey" is not a description of the edit that you made to Kooragang Island. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

Please do not add "references" like this. This is not how we provide references. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for guidance on how to provide references, and use existing references in the article as a guide. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove dead references from articles, per WP:DEADLINK. There are ways of fixing dead links. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, please stop removing dead links from articles, as you did here. They CAN be fixed. WP:DEADLINK quite clearly says, "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available." Your edits are becoming more disruptive. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history at Stockton Beach shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AussieLegend (✉) 23:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Reversion

Just to let you know, per advice from an administrator,[5] I intend reverting the changes that you have made to Stockton Beach. The original research and other dubious changes that you've made, including the removal of valid content and citations, simply cannot be allowed to stand. You've steadfastly refused to discuss your edits and the latest round of deletions of citations is simply unnaceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User pages

Please don't edit the user page of other editors. If you wish to communicate with editors, please use their talk pages. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stockton Beach may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• built. Nor can existing shacks be rebuilt if they are destroyed by the elements.<ref name=nrma/> ].<ref name=hansard_20100831 /><ref name=tincity/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.digital-photo.com.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please review citations

Please actually read citations before removing content from articles. This edit removed content that is clearly supported by Reference 12 in the article, which is this extract from Hansard which says "In fact, parts of Mad Max were filmed on Stockton Beach and a young Mel Gibson camped in the huts". The remains of only one Sabre jet are still on the beach, so the source that says "the remains of a crashed Sabre jet" appear from time to time clearly apply to this aircraft. Your edits to the article have created many errors and do not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This edit to Kooragang Island a few days ago was almost vandalism. The wind turbine was still turning when I drove past it 90 minutes ago. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Tomaree Battery. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• 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.

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. AussieLegend (✉) 03:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stockton Beach. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• 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.

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. AussieLegend (✉) 13:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As was explained above, there is an authoritative reference in Stcokton Beach that says "In fact, parts of Mad Max were filmed on Stockton Beach and a young Mel Gibson camped in the huts".[6] Removal of cited content from articles just because you disagree with it is inappropriate, as you have been told before. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Persistent disruptive editing by new user. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to start taking part in discussions and responding to other editors.

Please respond at WP:ANI#Persistent disruptive editing by new user. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise and discussion between editors is essential. I'm an Administrator who hasn't been involved with you before and I'm posting to tell you that if you don't respond shortly, certainly before you edit again, I'll have to block you until you find it possible to enter into a discussion. Hopefully any block can be avoided. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's a shame that you have chosen to ignore the above warning by naking this edit without any attempt at discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This block can be lifted at any time by any Administrator once you provide evidence that you will edit cooperatively, refrain from attacking other editors or misusing WP:Edit summaries and show that you understand our policy of no original research, ie you will provide sources meeting WP:RS rather than using your own analysis or experience. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)