User talk:Peacenik162

Y&R ANZ

Pleas read WP:RS/SPS. The source DigitalTip [1] which you added to the article Y&R ANZ completely fails the guidelines for acceptable sources on Wikipedia. Clicking on the 'About' section [2] indicates that it is the personal website of one individual. It therefore falls under the category of a self-published source, and is not acceptable to be used. This is the reason it has been removed. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your uncivil and completely inaccurate accusations against me in your edit summary at Y&R ANZ [3], I would kindly ask you to please read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. I have been editing Wikipedia for 10 years, having made changes to over 8,000 unique pages. Your account has been editing Wikipedia for 2 weeks, and has only made changes to one article. All of your changes seek to promote the company in a positive light. It is absolutely laughable for you to accuse me of having bias, when your account is the ultimate example of one which is only here to promote your own agenda. Wikipedia does not allow accounts that are only here to promote one agenda; some of us are actually interested in building an encyclopedia and editing across all topics. I strongly suggest you either stop editing Wikipedia, or start editing Wikipedia across multiple areas where you do not have a conflict of interest. Contrary to your accusations, I do not feel strongly about the company Y&R ANZ one way or or another, I have simply noticed the attempts from IP users to vandalise the article by remove any controversy that gets added to it. I am against vandalism and using Wikipedia as a means of advertising. That is my only agenda here. Also please stop removing information backed up by reliable sources from Wikipedia. You have now removed the information that Y&R ANZ lost their contract with the ADF twice, even though this information is referenced to a reliable source. Removing information from a reliable source without explicitly giving justification for why you are doing so could lead to your account being blocked from editing. Freikorp (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y&R ANZ lost the ADF account almost 3 years after the "Controversy" incident, and in no way as a result of the incident. This information is not relevant to the "Controversy" section. If you wish to create a new section for you to continue publishing negative, misleading, and libellous statements then do so. You criticise me for removing information backed up by reliable sources however you do exactly the same thing. Every time I cite an article from a reliable source that exonerates Y&R ANZ from the media beat-up you instantly remove it. I don't care that you've been editing Wikipedia pages for 10 years and have made changes to over 8,000 pages; I only care about reporting the whole story, and stopping your personal vendetta against Y&R ANZ. You cannot deny that you started editing the Y&R ANZ page on the very same day that a libellous article was published about Y&R ANZ. Not a coincidence by any means. Peacenik162 (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not a coincidence. Editing Wikipedia is my hobby. As new information become available about a person / company / sporting team / event / product etc etc, I add it to the respective Wikipedia article for that subject. I was reading the news that day, saw the controversy, saw that it wasn't mentioned on the article for the company, so I updated it. That's what we do on Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, that's the whole purpose of building an encyclopedia. Updating new information as it become available. What part of this don't you understand?

Stop lying. It's not helping your cause. I only removed an UNRELIABLE source. I even explained why I removed it, yet you still added it back anyway. Why? Because you don't care about building an encyclopedia. You only care about promoting the company that you are clearly affiliated with.

I can see your point about the company losing their contract with the ADF not being related to the controversy. If that's your concern what you should have done was relocate the information about them losing the contract to the article's History section. We have a reliable source that says they lost a contract. You can't remove that, but we can relocate it. If that was your issue all along why didin't you just actually explain that instead of ignoring attempts for dialog? Freikorp (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've relocated the information to the History section. You probably aren't going to believe me when I say this again, but I'll say it again anyway. I could not care less about this company one way or the other. I care about people trying to remove content from Wikipedia without explanation or with deceit. As I explained on the article's talk page, the editors who have been trying to remove this content for years have, like yourself, repeatedly refused to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. They just kept blatantly deleting the whole thing, either with no explanation of with an incorrect one. And in some cases they resorted to gaming the system, a deceitful tactic which has only resulted in me being more vigilant about watching for further attacks. That's what I have a problem with. If you'd like to discuss the issue further please do so on the talk page. Freikorp (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Y&R ANZ. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freikorp has been reported to administrators' noticeboard for incidents

User:Freikorp has been reported to administrators' noticeboard for incidents, for repetitive and disruptive editing to Y&R ANZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). User:Freikorp first started editing this page on 21 May 2011, the very same day that a misleading and inaccurate article was published about the company. Since that day he has made it his personal agenda to remove accurate information on the page and replace with more misleading and libellous statements, accounting for over 25% of total edits to the page.

You are perilously close here to violating WP:no legal threats. Once again, you need to discuss article content on the article talk page. Attempted character assassination, mischaracterization, and throwing around legal jargon will lead to you being blocked from editing.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You used that word again. You might find it more productive to raise your concerns with the Foundation-- info-en-q@wikimedia.org, as this looks like more than just an editing dispute.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BLP/help might help you to edit more constructively and with less frustration.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Y&R ANZ. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, you've reverted five times on this article today: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. In the future, please take the 3 revert rule into consideration and discuss your edits on the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you edit warred and then reported at AN/I w/o discussing on the talkpage. Please read and follow WP:BRD. Thanks--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators noticeboard

You have been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for attempted character assassination, mischaracterization and making legal threats. Freikorp (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing inquiry

Hello Peacenik162. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Peacenik162. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Peacenik162|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jbh ^Talk 02:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm actually a close friend of one of the individuals whose name was dragged through the mud by the original article in 2011, and 7 years on is still having to defend themselves because of the links to the original article on the Y&R ANZ Wikipedia page. In the REAL WORLD, legal acton was taken however Wikipedia seems to be above the law. I do not have an undisclosed financial stake in this topic.Peacenik162 (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. What you need to do is have your friend contact the Volunteer Response Team info-en-q@wikimedia.org and politely explain the situation and what outcome they would like to see. We take the policy on biographies of living persons very seriously and volunteers there will be able to help explain and navigate our content policies. What you should not do is throw about unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct or words like slander and libel. Doing so has likely cost you the good will of many editors, will ultimately hinder your cause and in all likelihood result in your account being indefinitely blocked from editing. (See 'No legal threats' and 'No personal attacks')

If you are blocked or if you do not get the outcome you want editing here do not register another account or edit as in IP to continue the conflict. Doing so is sock-puppetry and those accounts will, per policy, be reverted and blocked out of hand. At that point the only remaining course is to contact the VRT at the email address I provided above. Jbh ^Talk 04:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor should also be directed to WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]