User talk:Neilbrad

April 2016

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Gatton murders with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gatton murders with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Gatton murders with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gatton murders with this edit. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Jack the Ripper. Your last warning was a Level 4 so I have continued it here. Your edit is not only unreferenced, it is clearly designed to promote yourself rather than providing unbiased encyclopedic content. I'm somewhat surprised you haven't already been indeffed already as a promotion-only account. Doc talk 09:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you removed the references provided for the Oxley and Gatton murders, which would have complemented what was outlined for "Jack the Ripper." And don't consider bother blocking anything as what you say is correct, and that is too much of what is provided at Wikipedia with respect to the murders do not have appropriate references, so I will not be contributing anything further.

I did not remove any references with this revert.[1] There simply were no references provided... even from your book(!). Normally I would tell an editor to check WP:CITE when adding material. But since you won't be contributing anything further... Doc talk 10:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Queensland Police Service, Reference SDC-EXECSEC15031610050, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatton_murders, the three documents you refer to have been found to have either been forged or falsified, obviously with intent to implicate Father Daniel Walsh in the Gatton murders, something that is now known by the Queensland Police Service. If you wish to contact the police, what I have said will be confirmed. Moreover, no one, until you, questioned what is outlined in "Oxley-Gatton Murders: Exposing the Conspiracy," as everything therein has an appropriate reference, and the same is the same with the next book, "Surviving the Joke: Was he Jack the Ripper?" As a former police officer, one does not make a bold statement like that unless one is able to back up what one alludes to in the book.

(Sigh) I do not wish to "contact the police", nor am I questioning what is in the book. See: WP:V, WP:RS, CITE and some other stuff. Seeya. Doc talk 11:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enough. I have checked your edit history, your sole interest in Wikiopedia seesm to be promotion of your own theories from your own books. Thanks for your interest, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]