User talk:HGH493

Hi HGH493 and thanks for your contributions to wikipedia. Just a friendly hello to let you know why I reverted one of your edits. WP:SYNTH states:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."

This is why I have reverted your edit to the GetUp! article. You have provided a reference for the number of signatures and have provided a reference for GetUp!'s total members and have synthesised this information yourself to say "obviously less than 9% of GetUp!'s members responded" however as per wikipedia's guidelines you would only be able to say that if that is what the reference itself states, no matter how obvious it is. Freikorp (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Australian Greens. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bidgee (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page threads

Hi HGH. Just thought I'd bring your attention to this edit I made. Managing talk-page threads can be tricky, but you're allowed to respond to comments immediately after them (even if there are subsequent comments), so long as you indent appropriately. Feel free to revert if you have a problem with what I've done. -- Lear's Fool 08:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some unsolicited advice

HGH, you'll have to forgive me for offering some unsolicited advice regarding the tone of your contributions at Talk:Australian Greens. There is no preference, in theory or in practice, given to the editorial perspectives of users based on their experience. New users and experienced users are encouraged to give input, and this contributes to the consensus. However, I have to council you against going into a discussion and casting aspersions about the editorial bias of editors, the vast majority of whose tenure you cannot be familiar with. Personally, I have variously been accused of being an agent of the ALP, Liberals and the Greens, and all those accusations have been equally mistaken. My advice to you would be to take the contributions on that page at face value, and avoid reading any bias into them. -- Lear's Fool 09:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HGH493

Hi HGH. Please note that I have opened an investigation into the possibility of your using multiple accounts in a manner not allowed by policy. There is a section on the investigation page with the title "Comments by other users", where you are welcome to comment. If you have been using multiple accounts in this way but didn't realise it wasn't allowed, please say so on that page. Thanks. -- Lear's Fool 04:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, the Investigation has revealed that you've been editing with multiple accounts, doing so in the same subject area, and occasionally doing so to affect the outcome of discussions. None of this is allowed by the relevant policy, so I have blocked your accounts indefinitely. Please note that indefinite does not mean infinite. If you would like to return to editing (probably with some restrictions), you can appeal to an uninvolved editor by adding {{unblock|*insert your reason here*}} below. You may want to read the guide to appealing blocks first, and please try to keep all communication on this page, rather than the pages of your sock accounts. -- Lear's Fool 00:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]