User talk:Ash.david

Adding uncited statements

You have repeatedly added a sentence to the article Fraser Island. Your addition may be factually correct (or not), however you need to add a citation to support your claim. Park3r (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Park3r Respectfully, you have repeatedly removed my sentence to the article Fraser Island. The name change happened within the last couple of months. People still refer to it as Fraser Island whether it is its official name or not. This will happen for the good part of several years. The evidence of proof is on you to show that this isn't the case. Please do not delete my comment. I will only add it back. Ash.david (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it the second time, another editor did. Also, if you did what you're threatening to do (repeatedly add something back) is called Wikipedia:Edit warring and likely to lead to sanctions. Park3r (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Park3r, respectfully, read your own source. "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism.". I have made my edit in good faith. The REMOVAL of it, however, is edit warring and can lead to sanctions - it's also intellectually dishonest. Ash.david (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your most recent addition of this material. As @Park3r states, Wikipedia has a verifiability policy, and information in articles must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Your statement that "The evidence of proof is on [Park3r] to show that this isn't the case" is entirely false; per the verifiability policy, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (bolded in original). You are adding material to the article, and so you must demonstrate how this can be verified in reliable sources. As for the edit warring policy, the section you quote specifically states that "insertion or removal of material" is not vandalism. Not only removal, "insertion or removal". As you are inserting material, repeatedly restoring it is edit warring. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tol, instead of removing factually correct information (which is intellectually dishonest) please allow me to update my statement with sources in due course. Leave it be please. Thank you. Ash.david (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied in the discussion that you opened on my talk page. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is now sourced. You can do us all a massive favour and not delete factually correct information, otherwise you're being disruptive and not contributing positively to the page. My discussion with you is now closed. Good day. Ash.david (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, I am unaware of any "sock puppetry" or the user TyromannA you are referring to. I am a local from Queensland (as local as they come, actually). If you think extending the block on my account in an attempt to suppress factual information is somehow going to help educate people, then that is unfortunate and very sad for you. As a Wikipedia page moderator, you clearly think you have superior knowledge and skills (evidently, you don't) and you are at a loss with your deliberate deletion of factual information. You cannot silence the truth. You cannot silence local conversation. Fraser Island will remain Fraser Island, or K'gari. That is not racist; it is not wrong, it's just how it is. Children at school will be looking at this, and you are wilfully doing them a disservice. You are giving them an uneducation. Think about that next time you blame the next local for "sock puppetry".

Reverts on Fraser Island and Talk:Fraser Island

If you want to continue editing here, I strongly encourage you to stop these reverts. For how to act on talk pages, see the talk page guidelines; removing other editors comments is not permitted except under limited circumstances. For article pages, please remember that you need to ensure any content you add is sourced, and if your sourced edit is disputed you need to first try discussing the edit with the editor on the talk page and then if that doesn't work going through dispute resolution - repeatedly implementing your content will see you banned for edit warring.

At the moment, we refer to the island as "Fraser Island". At some point in the future there will be another proposal to move it to "K'gari"; if you want to participate in that move request and present your arguments for why it should not be moved you need to avoid being banned in the meantime. BilledMammal (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ash.david, let me reiterate what BilledMammal is saying. Your conduct is unacceptable. I've put your user page onto my watchlist and if other editors are justified in complaining about your behaviour, I will hand out a block to avoid further disruption. I hope that's as crystal-clear as it can be. Schwede 66 09:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy, calm down. You have my word, there will be no more reverts from me on this talk thread. Ash Kuss (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as calm as a glassy sea. Schwede 66 09:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As am I, and my information is factual. Ash Kuss (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BilledMammal, you have my word I will no longer revert on this thread so you can cool your boots as you no longer need to bring this up. I can see in other threads there is a proposal to move the article name to K'gari instead of Fraser. My statement on the article has nothing to do with that. It has to do with social discourse. The conversation among locals and tourists generally is that it is referred to by both names. This is neither racist nor wrong. You cannot legislate, edit or remove social discourse; it just is. I have reflected this in the statement on the article. Instead of saying "many people still refer to it as Fraser", I have changed it to "some people". Ash Kuss (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ash.david, I have again reverted your most recent edit. I will reiterate what I wrote on the talk: please stop adding this text to the article, unless you can provide a reliable source that supports it. Regardless of whether something is true or not, it must be verifiable to be included on Wikipedia, and the source you have provided still does not support the claim you are adding, even in your most recent edit. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 13:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tol This is sad you think so. Please refer to toponymy on Fraser Island page. Ash Kuss (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emails

Ash.david, I have no response to your emails other than to point you to what I have already stated. I would be open to having further on-wiki discussion on Talk:Fraser Island when you are unblocked, and would strongly encourage you to avoid re-adding your edit unless consensus develops to do so. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tol, it is disheartening and sad that you still wish to not use all information available especially when it is useful to all. I would be open to having further discussion with you as to why my information should be included. I'm not sure if you're offended by people's use of the name Fraser but social discussion does not need a consensus. Again, open to discussion with you if you are happy to be civil. Ash Kuss (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to explain this more clearly, but information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. This means that it must already be stated in a reliable source before it can be included on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether information is true, or if it is "available", it should not be added to Wikipedia unless it has been stated in a reliable source. Further, Wikipedia is not a forum for "social discussion"; inclusion of material on Wikipedia does need consensus. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't know how I can respond more clearly. It was verifiable by the sources I provided. To say it wasn't is purely subjective by you. Fraser and K'gari are the two common names used by the island, regardless of whether it's the official name or not. This was used in all the sources I provided before they were deleted by you and your friends. Further, Wikipedia is a reflection of what is happening in the world around us, which includes the names of places, locations and landmarks. To not include Fraser means you're lacking information, and giving people an uneducation. Ash Kuss (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People like you are literally the reason why some education institutions do not trust Wikipedia - editors filtering out information so that it only supports a confirmation bias. You give it a bad rap dude. Ash Kuss (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read all of the sources that you provided, and I did not see any statements regarding what name locals used for the island. If you are asserting that the sentence you were adding was verifiable in the sources you provided, could you provide a relevant brief quote from one of those sources? As I have stated before, information being true does not mean it should be added to Wikipedia; topics must be notable, and information must be verifiable, before information can be added. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Tol, oh dear. The sources refer to using both the names, as in Fraser Island and K'gari, not a quote or statement. The sources presumably are written by a person representing an organisation, public group or business yeah? Meaning it represents people, meaning its verifiable. Seriously, I think you have a phobia against the facts. Check yourself before you wreck yourself bro. Ash Kuss (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tol I see you have reverted another of my updates again. This time I included no statement but a suggestion that we could build on the section to include current use of the former name, which is literally the definition of toponymy. Encyclopaedia Brittanica defines toponymy as: the "taxonomic study of place-names, based on etymological, historical, and geographical information.". Historically, the previous official name of the island was Fraser, we should probably be able to study why that is, because you know, we have a colonial history alongside an indigenous one in Australia. It's really odd you feel the need to delete verifiable information or even the possibility of verifiable information and then justify it by hiding behind reasons of consensus. Please tell me, are you actually offended by Australia's colonial history? Ash Kuss (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, there may be a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your preferential treatment against opinions you disagree with. Consider this your first and final warning. Ash Kuss (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 11:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned and blocked before. You know the behavior isn't conducive to a collaborative editing environment yet you persist and are blocked again. Note this is not about your opinion, which you're entitled to but the continued incivility against editors with whom you disagree. Star Mississippi 11:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that disagreeing with the state government's decision to rename Fraser Island and showing genuine reasons why it wasn't a good idea causes people to lose their minds. It's Fraser; always was, always will be. Ash Kuss (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 00:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this comment just say before the block is to expire gives me no confidence you son't be re-litigating the same issues. Block extended. cc @SHB2000 Star Mississippi 00:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is unfortunate but it was their own undoing. SHB2000 (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this comment just proves my point. You block the user because you fail to disagree well, which only goes to show you've completely lost the plot. Please find the peace you're looking for, because edit warring about Fraser isn't it. Ash Kuss (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Special:Diff/1220374774? You were not blocked for your opinion, but your continued incivility against other editors. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.britannica.com/place/Fraser-Island At least one Encyclopaedia knows what they're talking about. Ash Kuss (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Star Mississippi 11:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to use UTRS to request an unblock. You're not going to spend the block duration continuing the same arguments that led to your block. Star Mississippi 11:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS requests

UTRS appeal #83227, UTRS appeal #83402, UTRS appeal #83499, UTRS appeal #83581, and UTRS appeal #83706 have all been declined. User is strongly warned they don't have an unlimited number of UTRS requests and have used far more than almost anyone else ever has. --Yamla (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]