User talk:Mgreenwo3030

October 2019[edit]

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with unblocking[edit]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mgreenwo3030 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Mgreenwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Apologies for using a company/organisation name. I would like to change my username to something that resembles my name. I work for ARTC Inland Rail and am looking to make edits to the Inland Railway page as it is not technically correct. I would first like to change the name to Inland Rail, as this is more accurate and representative of the business. There are edits in the copy I would also like to make but I am unsure how to go about it as I have little experience in editing Wikipedia articles. Any help would be appreciated.

Decline reason:

No thanks. If you wish to write about other subjects, subjects for which you would not be violating WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO, tell us what they are. Yamla (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yamla

I understand if I am unable to edit the article, but you must know that the title of the article is incorrect. It is not Inland Railway, but Inland Rail. Any search for Inland Railway will direct you to Inland Rail, which is the official name of the infrastructure project. What is up there now is not factual and requires changing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTC Inland Rail (talk • contribs)

If you are interested in being a general, individual Wikipedia contributor, you might be allowed to make an edit request or Requested Move, but if you are only here to advocate for Inland Rail, there is no cause to unblock you to just make one request. If it is that incorrect, an independent editor will eventually take note of it and address the matter. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:331dot

Thanks for the reply. I am not here to advocate for Inland Rail. I do understand the stance Wikipedia has for creating and curating content that has little or no bias, and am by no means trying to influence the conversation. I am just looking to have the title of the article changed as it is incorrect, and has been for quite some time. The information in the article is outdated and requires some editing, as the project has now progressed and changed since that content was written. Since this is a large infrastructure project that has the support of the Australian government and a number of national organisations, having an accurate article page that reflects the most current information is important.

How am I able to make an edit request?

Right now, you can't.(though if you click the words 'edit request' in my last post, you can read the instructions) You need to make a successful unblock request first, starting with responding to what Yamla stated in their comment declining your first request. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{request edit} {unblock-spamun|Mgreenwo3030|I would like keep an eye on the Inland Rail page}[edit]

{request edit}

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mgreenwo3030 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Mgreenwo3030 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I would like keep an eye on the Inland Rail page

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but as your only purpose here is to edit Inland Rail, you cannot be unblocked. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 09:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I would like an editor to please check the Inland Rail Wikipedia page for inaccuracies and personal bias.

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Rail

I would like the following content reviewed and removed from the page if possible please:

"There are very many problems and serious impacts of the project as demonstrated by relevant Inquiries by the NSW State Legislative Council and the detailed Submissions to the ongoing Australian Senate Inquiry into the Inland Rail (see Submissions for download on link https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/InlandRail/Submissions ). The many problems and serious impacts of the Inland Rail are very real and are detailed in the Senate Submissions (which include detailed expert plus local advice). These problems and impacts are also the topic of many discussions between the communities, government representatives and the official Community Consultative Committees (CCC's) of the Inland Rail of which this author "Concerned InlandRail" is a member. It is unfortunate and wrong that the concerns that were included in a recent edit (yesterday) of this Inland Rail page were deleted by someone seemingly unaware or dismissive of the reality of these concerns and the validity of the Submissions to the Senate Inquiry. It is not correct or right for any person to "Remove sections based solely on opinions" (i.e. "solely on opinions" of the removalistItalic text) as stated for the reason in the "View History of Edits" of this Inland Rail Wikipedia site when those important sections are factual and based on expert advice. For a factual understanding of the Inland Rail, please would all researchers and everyone download and read the independent Submissions on the link above (including especially Submissions 98 & 98.1 plus 31 & 31.1 plus 196 & 196.1). Please would Inland Rail staff and others not delete, belittle, dismiss or attempt to obscure or whitewash on this Wikipedia page, the accurate advice of the experts and the CCC's involved for no monetary gain - doing so deliberately reduces the value of this Wikipedia page for everyone. The Inland Rail Web Page link is already provided on this Web Page (as well as the content on most of this Wikipedia Page in addition to huge amounts of glossy Public Relations material issued by Inland Rail) for those who understandably do not have the time or priority or simply do not want to hear of the advice and impacts and important issues associated with the Inland Rail.

The main beneficiary of the Inland Rail will be the thermal coal industry of SE Queensland as demonstrated in the business case in the attached graph "Economic Impacts by Industry during...." as provided by Inland Rail itself to the Senate Inquiry (Figure 15 on Page 37 of ARTC Submission 128 Attachment 1 available for downloading from the Senate Submission site above). This fact is supported by many published experts and respected journalists (see Submission 98 and also the links https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/03/20/inland-rails-dirty-secret-subsidised-coal-exports/ and https://www.afr.com/companies/infrastructure/business-case-for-10b-melbourne-to-brisbane-inland-rail-unravelling-20190326-p517li ). In contrast to the benefits to the thermal coal industry in SE Queensland, any positive benefits to the Agricultural and Primary Industry sectors in Australia will be negligible (see again the Graph "Economic Impacts by Industry...." as provided by Inland Rail itself. THIS INLAND RAIL IS NOT A PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE AND WILL PROVIDE NO BENEFIT TO ANYONE EXCEPT THE VERY FEW ABLE TO GET THEIR HANDS ON SOME OF THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PUBLIC MONEY SPLASHED BY POLITICAL FRIENDS . A long-term well-known public advocate of a very different Inland Rail has stated the project "is in the hands of gross political and bureaucratic incompetents who have turned it into an unbelievable farce at huge cost to the nation" (see link http://mhdsupplychain.com.au/2019/03/29/opinion-inland-railway-politics-of-disaster/ )

The railway will transport some freight between Melbourne and Brisbane over large floodplains, bisecting established farms, blocking roads and crossing within metres of established premises and residences in both rural communities and heavily populated suburbs to achieve a strongly-debated anticipated transit time of less than 24 hours. For example, the currently unfunded section between Toowoomba and Kagaru in Queensland will require the funding, planning, design, construction and maintenance of:- • circa 130 kilometres of new dual gauge track; almost nine kilometres of tunnels, including a 6.5 kilometre tunnel of 10 metres diameter through the Toowoomba Ranges which will be the largest diesel train tunnel in the Southern Hemisphere; • 25 level crossings and 10 road-over-rail separations; • 21 viaducts totaling 5.7 kilometres in length; • 37 river bridges, including 20 totaling one kilometre between Helidon and Calvert; and • 11 crossing loops”. see link https://infrastructurepipeline.org/project/inland-rail---toowoomba-to-kagaru-sections-ppp/

Construction of the railway commenced in 2018 despite a serious lack (currently many billions of dollars) of funds and the controversies and lack of proven feasibility and approvals over much of the route, and it is never-the-less scheduled to be completed in 2025.[1] . Despite the lack of funds and its unviability (based on economical, environmental and social responsibilities), the Inland Rail Team (for whatever reason but probably for extra handouts of public cash anticipated and lobbied for) is now attempting to feast off the Covid-19 tragedies and deaths by offensively launching a public campaign stating that these tragedies and deaths somehow justify their project - see the web link https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/8dc81b6194fb5df157b4d2a1131f246ae6bc7b49/original/1587698718/IR_1752_B2G_project_update_web.pdf_bbb912cca445d88cf55b03e9527bd0f6?1587698718"

This content was posted by a user named Concerned Inland Rail, and is not only slanderous but completely unfactual. It would be appreciated if you could please take a look and remove the content as it violates the Wikipedia policy of including personal bias and contempt.

Thanks for your help.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.
[edit]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Hi there, I would like an editor to please check the Inland Rail Wikipedia page for inaccuracies and personal bias.

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Rail

I would like the following content reviewed and removed from the page if possible please:

"There are very many problems and serious impacts of the project as demonstrated by relevant Inquiries by the NSW State Legislative Council and the detailed Submissions to the ongoing Australian Senate Inquiry into the Inland Rail (see Submissions for download on link https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/InlandRail/Submissions ). The many problems and serious impacts of the Inland Rail are very real and are detailed in the Senate Submissions (which include detailed expert plus local advice). These problems and impacts are also the topic of many discussions between the communities, government representatives and the official Community Consultative Committees (CCC's) of the Inland Rail of which this author "Concerned InlandRail" is a member. It is unfortunate and wrong that the concerns that were included in a recent edit (yesterday) of this Inland Rail page were deleted by someone seemingly unaware or dismissive of the reality of these concerns and the validity of the Submissions to the Senate Inquiry. It is not correct or right for any person to "Remove sections based solely on opinions" (i.e. "solely on opinions" of the removalistItalic text) as stated for the reason in the "View History of Edits" of this Inland Rail Wikipedia site when those important sections are factual and based on expert advice. For a factual understanding of the Inland Rail, please would all researchers and everyone download and read the independent Submissions on the link above (including especially Submissions 98 & 98.1 plus 31 & 31.1 plus 196 & 196.1). Please would Inland Rail staff and others not delete, belittle, dismiss or attempt to obscure or whitewash on this Wikipedia page, the accurate advice of the experts and the CCC's involved for no monetary gain - doing so deliberately reduces the value of this Wikipedia page for everyone. The Inland Rail Web Page link is already provided on this Web Page (as well as the content on most of this Wikipedia Page in addition to huge amounts of glossy Public Relations material issued by Inland Rail) for those who understandably do not have the time or priority or simply do not want to hear of the advice and impacts and important issues associated with the Inland Rail.

The main beneficiary of the Inland Rail will be the thermal coal industry of SE Queensland as demonstrated in the business case in the attached graph "Economic Impacts by Industry during...." as provided by Inland Rail itself to the Senate Inquiry (Figure 15 on Page 37 of ARTC Submission 128 Attachment 1 available for downloading from the Senate Submission site above). This fact is supported by many published experts and respected journalists (see Submission 98 and also the links https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/03/20/inland-rails-dirty-secret-subsidised-coal-exports/ and https://www.afr.com/companies/infrastructure/business-case-for-10b-melbourne-to-brisbane-inland-rail-unravelling-20190326-p517li ). In contrast to the benefits to the thermal coal industry in SE Queensland, any positive benefits to the Agricultural and Primary Industry sectors in Australia will be negligible (see again the Graph "Economic Impacts by Industry...." as provided by Inland Rail itself. THIS INLAND RAIL IS NOT A PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE AND WILL PROVIDE NO BENEFIT TO ANYONE EXCEPT THE VERY FEW ABLE TO GET THEIR HANDS ON SOME OF THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PUBLIC MONEY SPLASHED BY POLITICAL FRIENDS . A long-term well-known public advocate of a very different Inland Rail has stated the project "is in the hands of gross political and bureaucratic incompetents who have turned it into an unbelievable farce at huge cost to the nation" (see link http://mhdsupplychain.com.au/2019/03/29/opinion-inland-railway-politics-of-disaster/ )

The railway will transport some freight between Melbourne and Brisbane over large floodplains, bisecting established farms, blocking roads and crossing within metres of established premises and residences in both rural communities and heavily populated suburbs to achieve a strongly-debated anticipated transit time of less than 24 hours. For example, the currently unfunded section between Toowoomba and Kagaru in Queensland will require the funding, planning, design, construction and maintenance of:- • circa 130 kilometres of new dual gauge track; almost nine kilometres of tunnels, including a 6.5 kilometre tunnel of 10 metres diameter through the Toowoomba Ranges which will be the largest diesel train tunnel in the Southern Hemisphere; • 25 level crossings and 10 road-over-rail separations; • 21 viaducts totaling 5.7 kilometres in length; • 37 river bridges, including 20 totaling one kilometre between Helidon and Calvert; and • 11 crossing loops”. see link https://infrastructurepipeline.org/project/inland-rail---toowoomba-to-kagaru-sections-ppp/

Construction of the railway commenced in 2018 despite a serious lack (currently many billions of dollars) of funds and the controversies and lack of proven feasibility and approvals over much of the route, and it is never-the-less scheduled to be completed in 2025.[1] . Despite the lack of funds and its unviability (based on economical, environmental and social responsibilities), the Inland Rail Team (for whatever reason but probably for extra handouts of public cash anticipated and lobbied for) is now attempting to feast off the Covid-19 tragedies and deaths by offensively launching a public campaign stating that these tragedies and deaths somehow justify their project - see the web link https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/8dc81b6194fb5df157b4d2a1131f246ae6bc7b49/original/1587698718/IR_1752_B2G_project_update_web.pdf_bbb912cca445d88cf55b03e9527bd0f6?1587698718"

This content was posted by a user named Concerned Inland Rail, and is not only slanderous but completely unfactual. It would be appreciated if you could please take a look and remove the content as it violates the Wikipedia policy of including personal bias and contempt.

Thanks for your help.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

I am Declining your edit requests, as you are currently blocked. Per WP:PROXYING I would not be allowed to act on your edit requests. However, I will have a look at the article later today. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

globally renamed ARTC Inland Rail to Mgreenwo3030[edit]

FWIW, globally renamed ARTC Inland Rail to Mgreenwo3030 --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 09:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned the thing out.[edit]

I cleaned the thing out. On the one hand there was egregiously negative, inadequately sourced content. On the other was content mostly sourced to the companies involved. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Best. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 09:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]