User talk:Brownlife

Brownlife, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Brownlife! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Brownlife. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Rosie Batty. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note from previous posts on this talk page and on other talk pages that editors have expressed concerns over your editing concerning living people. Your recent edit to the Rose Batty article was an appalling slur. I seriously considered setting the block duration here as indefinite given the deliberateness of the slur and the extreme hurt it could have caused to the subject of the article and her family had they read it, but am giving you the benefit of the doubt. That said, over this weekend I will be going through your edits on articles concerning other living people, as there are elements in other articles which are concerning. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh???A slur. Please explain?Brownlife (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to consider your edit acceptable, I have set the block duration to indefinite. Please note that this does not mean that the block is permanent, but that you will need to convince a reviewing administrator that you now understand your obligations under WP:BLP and will edit responsibly in the future. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

This was my first and only block. no warning for a new editor. I have thoroughly read policies and believe I realise where I went wrong. If i knew the edit I was blocked for I could answer to that more specifically. I say that completely genuinely. I believe I made some good edits to articles. One of the main lessons learnt was my bad attitude at times toward other editors who were trying to help me as a new editor. I also should have been more careful in relation to biographies of living persons

Decline reason:

Pretty sure you are just trolling, now. Yamla (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2018 (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 don't remember deliberately slandering the article subject in the first sentence of the article? I don't think that you should be editing in that case. From reviewing your edits further, I have noted that there's a pattern of removing material about the achievements of prominent Australian women, including some unreferenced material which would have been trivial to reference. The edit in case here (hint: your final, and now revision deleted edit to the above article) was a major escalation of this pattern, as it involved dismissing the achievements of Ms Batty and instead attacking her. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I merely included what several quality reliable sources state. That is she came to Australia on a defacto or partner visa. Is this what you mean? She did come here on a defacto visa. I really fail to see how I possibly slandered her? Can you confirm this is what you are talking about that earned me an indefinite block? I was never warned and am suddenly given an indefinite block for including a fact from the reliable sources. What other avenues have I got to appeal this decision please and to show that this edit you are talking of is not slanderous in any way?Brownlife (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what you added to the first sentence of the article. What you added was a deliberate slur, which was explicitly not supported by the longstanding source. FYI, admins (including the person who will review your request) are able to see edits which were hidden for being abusive like that here. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant the 2nd sentence not the first. Same edit. Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nick-D, you are a corrupt and biased admin IMHO who should not have privileges on Wikipedia. You blocked out my edit which was in no way disparaging of Batty, to justify your block. I have read through your edit history and have seen you do this to other new editors as well. Why don't you show my edit which as I said was simply stating that Rosie Batty came here on a DEFACTO/PARTNER VISA. You calling her Ms Batty speaks volumes about your blatant POV. Why don't you show my edit you crossed out Nick??? It is in a number of quality reliable sources. She did come here on a defacto visa and then split from her Australian partner shortly after. Why shouldn't that be included. Our articles should be edited from a NPOV Nick.Brownlife (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]