User talk:Kingcoconut

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Peter Foster, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --GenericBob (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to [[1]], Wikipedia:Template messages, neutral point of view, verifiability of information, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources Autarch (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Peter Foster. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. A contribution you made to Peter Foster appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Autarch (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other contributors, as you did with this edit to Talk:Peter Foster. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to Talk:Peter Foster. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Peter Foster. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Autarch (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on User talk:Autarch: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Autarch (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing (failure to follow NPOV, disruptive removal of templates). 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. - Philippe 22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingcoconut. Thank you.--GenericBob (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an interview[edit]

You recently asked me for an interview. I must decline for a number of reasons:

Personal details, such as my phone number, are not things that I give out easily at the best of times.
On several occasions templates were removed from Peter Foster without any attempt to engage in discussion about them.
You wrote "I am doing a thesis on criminality and the discrimination prisoners, ex-prisoners and people on parole endure at the hands of society." Perhaps you should check with your advisor about the limits of what is permittable in terms of producing evidence for your thesis.
You wrote "The edits that are being made are part of a project to determine your (wikipedia editors) attitude to Foster, and it has been most insightful." This seems to be at odds with the guideline Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
You wrote "I have sourced all my comments very carefully, and it is most amusing and troubling to see how the positive facts are removed, but the negative points are unaltered.".Some of the sources added to the article did not support the claims they were added to. Some are listed on the relevant section of the talk page. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources carefully.
You wrote "You'll hear alot more about this, but in the interim, I would very much like to interview you by telephone if you wanted to defend your actions." This sounds ominous for two reasons: the phrase "You'll hear alot more about this" sounds like a threat and the phrase "if you wanted to defend your actions" clearly puts the onus on me to defend my actions, as if I was in the wrong. Given recent personal attacks, I am concerned. Under normal circumstances, I am wary of giving out personal details, but the personal attacks, the fact that you are under investigation for using sockpuppets and the fact that you have been blocked for disruptive editing, I naturally refuse. Autarch (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AUTARCH ANSWER WHY YOU ARE SO BIAS TO FOSTER[edit]

Autarch you are hiding from your responsibilties. Here is one example. You removed Foster being described as an "international playboy" However, the highly respected Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC said, "Foster has been living the life of an international playboy". see: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/s805569.htm

Wheather you like it or not, he is an international playboy. He first appeared on the cover of Australian Playboy magazine in 1989 He first visted the playboy mansion west with Hugh Hefner in October 1983 Can you answer me why you are so jealous or that you take out the line about him dating a long line of beautiful women. These are facts. These women were on the world stage. Sam Fox. Carole Caplin and the Blair's. But you go out of your way to research criminal matters about him, but won't research and give him any credit at all. That is called bias. You, are acting with malice. You are discriminating against him. That is the thrust of my thesis. I say you will hear more about it, not as a threat, but through media reports. What you are doing strikes at the very heart of Wikipedia being used incorrectly by people who act in an unprofessional manner.

Autarch, you like to see yourslef as an impartial and fair editor. You're not. Actions speak louder than words. Your edits on Foster are not balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.78.219 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

Kingcoconut, this is your final warning. Stop making personal attacks and using sockpuppets. If you continue this behaviour, you will be blocked from editing the encyclopedia. Somno (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for evading block of 123.211.78.219. 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. Somno (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]