User talk:Gloriousrevolution

Welcome![edit]

Hello Gloriousrevolution, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Cntras (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not vandalise articles[edit]

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 Anzac Day, you may be blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have also been editing the Australian flag debate article to push what appear to be your personal views (for instance, [1]). You will be blocked from editing if this continues. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I authored those words originally and released them to the public domain. The Flag Society has no copyright. Gloriousrevolution (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed a blatant copyright violation you added to the Flag Day (Australia) article. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

It is not POV pushing. I'm a member of this organisation: http://www.flagsociety.org.au I'm just espousing our arguments. And the section of the article in question concerns arguments. I think you will find the chairman of the Australian Flag Society has his name mentioned in the body of the article in question. And, my efforts have resulted in change to the article, I would say improvement. This is crazy, political correctness.

Decline reason:

If you think that's improvement, you might need to use a couple days to read over Wikipedia's core policies. 狐 FOX 11:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to use Wikipedia as a forum to push your personal views. If you 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) 10:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As confirmed by your above comment, and amply demonstrated by your edits, it is obvious that your motivation in editing Wikipedia are to push your personal views. Your contributions are focused on a narrow range of articles, and appear to focus on advancing an conservative viewpoint (I note in particular the combination of this series of edits referenced to conservative organisations and your creation of a non-neutral article for one of these organisations (Australian Flag Society) which you have just confirmed you're a member of). I warned you yesterday for this POV-driven vandalism and your past conduct, but on the basis of your comments at Talk:Australian flag debate it appears that you are still seeking to further your personal views rather than contribute to improving articles through adding neutral and well-referenced text (in particular, I'm referring to comments such as this, this, this and this which have little to do with the topic of the article and appear to be your personal interpretations). Please note that this block is for an indefinite time, and is not a permanent block, so you may be unblocked if you can convince a reviewing administrator that you intend to edit in a productive and neutral fashion in the future. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I find you a bit anal nick. Gloriousrevolution (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The views I was trying to have incorporated into the article are those of the Australian Flag Society: http://www.flagsociety.org.au/An_aboriginal_motif.htm The National Convenor has in the past been invited to participate in radio debates where he has argued them...these people making a fuss about my posts, the mass media doesn't ask them for their views on the subject Gloriousrevolution (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You may have the WP:TRUTH, but please see WP:CONSENSUS - especially review WP:BRD. All additions - especially controvertial ones - require consensus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

If you look at the discussion page we were debating my proposed additions. The views may well be controversial - but they have been advanced. That is the point. The argument that the Australian flag needs an aboriginal device - that's controversial. Some would say it's racism. Yet I still see that argument in the article under arguments for change. Now I have read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD can you set the ban to expire some time in the not too distant future please?

Please include a decline or accept 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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Could the ban be set to a finite amount of time?

Decline reason:

Right now, you do not understand Wikipedia's rules. While you don't understand the rules, you should not edit. It wouldn't be appropriate to set a time limit, unless you can state with certainly when you will fully understand the rules. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Be cautious. I'm a nice person, so I did not lock this talk page from further edits, but traditionally, after three unblock requests that don't show any likelihood of an unblock happening, an admin will block someone from making further unblocks, just to avoid wasting the time of admins who have to respond to the unblock requests. My advice is that you refrain from making another unblock request unless it's really, really good, the sort that shows a complete understanding of why you are blocked and a clear plan for editing differently in the future. You should read WP:GAB really carefully before making any further requests, because your next one is probably the last one you'll be able to make. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I've now had time to review the links related to editing articles on wikipedia that have been brought to my attention. It seems to me the source of most dissatisfaction was my failure to initiate my proposed changes on the discussion page and seek consent. I give an undertaking to do this in future, and what can I say, if that does not happen I know it is unlikely I will be given another chance. With regards to pushing my own views, I do want to say mine are shared by the Australian Flag Society (AFS) of which I am a member. In relation to the Australian flag debate article, I was attempting to edit the section on arguments in favour of keeping the flag. Everything I sought to add I heard the National Convenor of the AFS say in a radio debate that was heard by 200,000 listeners. What he had to say wasn't very politely received by the other side, but he did say it. I wonder how often the other editors involved in the dispute are asked for their views on this matter and given such a platform to air them? In making this request for a finite ban I note that I have created several articles on wikipedia, under this and other handles. I think wikipedia is a great project and repository of knowledge and I want to continue to be a part.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but there are far too many issues coming to light below this request. Please, take some time to look over the policies, educate yourself on the correct attitude to take while editing and contributing here, and most importantly, take a deep breath and put the kettle on or something. 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 19:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 have to jump on one line in specific: I have created several articles on wikipedia, under this and other handles. What are these other handles are you talking about? Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for changing my handle is only that I was away from wikipedia for extended periods and I forgot what the usernames were. Gloriousrevolution (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this is for another admin to decide on, it seems from your latest unblock request that you still don't appreciate that editing driven by your personal opinions is unacceptable. I'd also note that part of the reason I blocked you was that you were using an article's talk page to promote your views as well. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Everything I sought to add I heard the National Convenor of the AFS say in a radio debate that was heard by 200,000 listeners. What he had to say wasn't very politely received by the other side, but he did say it. I wonder how often the other editors involved in the dispute are asked for their views on this matter and given such a platform to air them?" - That really does suggest a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a platform for any editors to air their own views, or report on things they have heard themselves. Wikipedia is not a "community opinion" forum, but an encyclopedia. And information included needs to be properly referenced to reliable sources which can be properly cited. Verifiability and Notability are key, and for something to be included we need to be able to verify it and show that it has been covered by reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the reference to the flag society website not enough? In any event I've given up on that particular article. The community seems resolute that it be low quality and incomplete.

But have a look at the last article I created (for the Australian Flag Society) and tell me what principles and understandings I haven't applied there.Gloriousrevolution (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If the Australian Flag Society site verified the material that you added to the article, then I think that would be fine as a source for a statement along the lines of "The Australian Flag Society said...". However, if the material was only contained in a radio broadcast, and is not also present on the site, then I think it would not be a suitable citation for the material - the point of a citation is that it should verify what is being added to the article. As for the Australian Flag Society article, at first glance that looks fine to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I removed a POV-pushing quote [2] and a blatant copyright violation from the Society's website [3] from the Australian Flag Society article. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be helpful to draw this editor's attention to Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest, something that is very strongly frowned upon. In particular, it explains that conflict of interest involves "contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." User:Gloriousrevolution has already told us of a direct connection with the Australian Flag Society, an article he has edited extensively. That immediately suggests a conflict of interest. I would strongly suggest withdrawing from editing that article and leaving it to other, less involved editors. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyrighted information removed from the Australian Flag Society page, I took it printed material which made no mention of it being under copyright. Gloriousrevolution (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand this statement; all printed material is copyrighted, unless the writer specifically gives up her copyright. Was there a specific statement releasing this legally into the public domain? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it doesn't matter now, since the conflict of interest rules that we all follow indicate that you'll be writing about different subjects in the future anyway. I stay away from editing the article about my workplace, too- we all do. Are you asking for unblock with the understanding that you'll be avoiding this article? What are the other kinds of writing you think you'll be doing? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Chance[edit]

If you understand that you may not edit articles on the topic of Australian Flag Society, then I'd be inclined to unblock you. However, you're first going to need to demonstrate that you are interested in improving Wikipedia on topics that are unrelated to your personal agenda. Consequently I'm going to offer a second chance. The boilerplate instructions below will explain how to improve an article while blocked.

This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
Click the Edit tab at the top of that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = [[Article title]] =) and save the page before you improve it.
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you.

-- Selket ^Talk 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]