User talk:Charleskelly

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. —EncMstr 22:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Freeriding

Well, perhaps you could create a page entitled Freeriding (snowboarding), and I can change your edits to the other page back. How is that? Basketball110^Talk 02:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Magda Szubanski, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Miranda Devine. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Crafty (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Miranda Devine. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Crafty (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Miranda Devine. Ginsengbomb (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

In case you did not read the SMH reference, it states her opinion, but not any reaction to it, or any opinion about her writing. You are going to have to find a reference that gives other people's opinion about Miranda Devine to support your assertion, otherwise it looks like your opinion. In response there are planty of opinions bt not a strong one to bach up cyclists as you suggest. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What Graeme said. Also, be careful about WP:EMAILABUSE. What you just sent me was completely uncalled for. Ginsengbomb (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Charleskelly (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC) In case YOU did not read the SMH reference, the responses (below it) to the article on the SMH website alone contains OVER 450 "opinions about her writing" and "reactions to her article". The MANY websites referencing that article alone (of which I provided reference to two) provide further evidence, not to mention all the reaction to her other articles! Should I have provided references to every single one of them?

Citing user comments on an article is not citing a reliable source. Ginsengbomb (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps reading about what constitutes a reliable source will help Charles. Crafty (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Charleskelly (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC) How is it not a "reliable source" - when what I wrote directly refers to the reaction she receives from readers of her articles??? I provided irrefutable evidence that the specific article I mentioned received intense criticism. How is it not a "reliable source" - when it's her own article on the website of her employer??? I can easily do exactly the same thing for many of her other articles. She's the newspaper equivalent to s "shock jock" for Christ's sake! It's her job to generate these reactions!

Charleskelly (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC) "Reliable Sources. . . Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example The New York Times in the United States and The Times in Great Britain" - The SMH is the Australian equivalent!

You are clearly reading the policy and looking for what you want to find, rather than reading it and finding what's in it. How about this, from the opening paragraph: "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." How are we to regard a bunch of random people posting comments on an article as "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand? Ginsengbomb (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "from mainstream news organizations" refers to the source of the content, not simply the Web address where it can be found, if you will. Does that make sense? Comments posted on an SMH article by the public are not material "from" a "mainstream news organization." That is material -about- material from a mainstream news organization, by extremely un-trustworthy and un-authoritative source -- free, anonymous commenting accounts. Ginsengbomb (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Charleskelly (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)You are clearly wrong in this instance.

If I write "Miranda Devine wrote something in an article" and "a bunch of random people posting comments on it were very critical of what was said" (which is essentially what I did write) - then clearly posting a link to the article on a mainstream news organization's website including both the article and the responses IS a "reliable source", as it verifies 100% what I wrote. You are simply twisting the rules to suit yourself.

An administrator of Wikipedia blocked you for this violation. The matter is concluded. There is no question of whether what you did was right or wrong, the question is whether you learn from it. I am worried that you are not. You have repeatedly been told exactly what the problem is. You have been linked the rules. Again, there is absolutely nothing encyclopedic or appropriate for inclusion about anonymous user comments on a Web site. This is not an issue that is up for debate, and it is clearly not okay. I understand your point. We all understand your point. You are simply incorrect. I'm not twisting the rules to suit myself. Why would I do that? I have no personal opinion on this, nor would any such opinion be relevant. Regardless, I'm not going to waste my breath anymore on this. Add the reference again and it will be reverted. Repeatedly do so and you will be blocked. I am sorry to be all stern sounding but your conduct here is worrisome. When an Administrator of Wikipedia blocks you, it means you made a mistake. Learn from that. Ginsengbomb (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just one more thought. You realize when you say "you are twisting the rules to suit yourself," you're basically talking to at least three people on here, right? One of whom is an Admin? I just want to be sure you realize that this isn't CharlesKelly vs. Ginsengbomb :). Ginsengbomb (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Charles, suggesting that Ginseng (or anyone else) is "twisting the rules" is poor form. One of the fundamental principles that governs Wikipedia is Assume good faith. The reason you were blocked is because you persisted in making edits that contravene our policies, despite being asked not to do so. Your edits to the Miranda Devine article are not appropriately sourced and are possibly in breach of our rules about biograpies of living people. Rather than making controversial edits in a unilateral manner, you should try raising the issue on the article talkpage and discussing it with other editors who have an interest in Miranda Devine. Crafty (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Charleskelly (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)I still think you're ALL wrong. If I was to write "xxxxxxx has a Facebook group dedicated to them" and added a link to that Facebook page for verification, then although Facebook pages are not considered "reliable sources" according to Wikipedia rules and the comments on the Facebook page clearly don't come from "reliable sources", the mere existence of the Facebook page 100% verifies the simple claim that it does indeed exist. This is basic common sense. Learn from that.

Yeah, there's a reason for that Charles. Wikipedia favours secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary sources, in typical encyclopedic style. I'm sorry that you're upset about these things and that your recent experiences here have not been happy ones. Crafty (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Charleskelly (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)I read the "Assume good faith" page, and as I'm perfectly aware that what I wrote is 100% factual, I feel it's you lot who have contravened this policy.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Your block has expired so perhaps it's time to let this go and get on with other more productive things. Regards, Crafty (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Charleskelly (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)I guess so. It's apparent to me that due to the policies listed previously, Wikipedia is largely flawed. Perhaps it's time to reassess these policies, then perhaps Wikipedia will eventually cease to be an object of ridicule for so many?

Maybe so. If you want to discuss the merits of our various policies and guidelines, you can do so on the talkpage for each policy that takes your fancy. Cheers, Crafty (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)