User talk:TruthAndContext

Possible COI - Mark Willacy?

Hello, TruthAndContext. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Mark Willacy, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.
I see you are a new editor to Wikipedia, welcome, I also ask why the particular interest in only editing Mark Willacy article?
Aeonx (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no external conflict of interest. I have observed how a backlash at reporting of alleged war crimes by Australian special forces is occurring in the wake of the Brereton inquiry report. I think your edits of this journalist’s page require more balance, precision and fact-based evidence. TruthAndContext (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for confirming you have no COI. I have had concerns over this article and COI for some time, so please don't take offense, it's simply to ensure that new editors are aware of the WP:COI policies. With regards to your point about backlash at reporting of alleged war crimes, that is precisely what I believe should be captured in the article. There have been a number of personal attacks made against Willacy which should also be captured (with reliable sources) to provide context. I am 100% of factual encyclopedic reporting. As a part of that, some consideration should be given to the possibility that the ABC may not actually be reliable for reporting about itself and it's directly employed journalists. Aeonx (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing - Mark Willacy - November 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mark Willacy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Aeonx (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are not intended to be disruptive but constructive. @Aeonx appears to be falling into the trap of false equivalence in the credibility of an interested party on the matter of war crimes allegations against November Platoon, its former commander, and that of the reporting by a reputable journalist at the ABC, the media outlet with the highest level of trust among the Australian public. TruthAndContext (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Mark Willacy, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits are mostly not constructive, they are pushing a particular non-neutral POV, whereby you assert, as again you have done so above, that things claimed by the ABC is a fact. The ABC did NOT reveal any Defence confirmation of an investigation into November platoon, they simply reported it. Only the Department of Defence can release a statement to that affect, and they haven't. Right now, you are repeating changes I have already reverted and asked you discuss on the article talkpage and get consensus for, which you haven't. What you are doing is edit warring and it is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please do not edit the article again until the changes are discussed on the the talkpage and there is consensus. Aeonx (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have an axe to grind, it appears @Aeonx. The ABC did reveal it in their reporting. The Defence Department documents do confirm the point made in the report. The Defence Department does not issue statements in regard to FOI decisions. You’re demonstrating bias by putting undue emphasis on the veracity of Heston Russell’s interpretation, when he is not a reliable independent source on this matter. TruthAndContext (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring - Mark Willacy

Your recent editing history at Mark Willacy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Aeonx (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach and fixation on a certain slant to this article suggest you are projecting, that it is you who is showing conduct that could be described as edit-warring. I have made evidence-based edits concerned with accuracy and correcting false equivalence that has led to an approach of journalistic neutrality rather than the required encyclopaedic neutrality. Your own record indicates very few of your edits elsewhere make it through or stay up for very long. You also demonstrate a concerning level of subjective support for prominent anti-vaccine proponents Craig Kelly and Judith Willyman. TruthAndContext (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Aeonx (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Mark Willacy) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are still free to edit other articles, as well as Talk:Mark Willacy. Please discuss your dispute there. I might also suggest that you read WP:TRUTH; in my experience users whose usernames indicate a focus on the "truth" have a tough time here, as truth is in the eye of the beholder. I urge you to adopt a collaborative attitude. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Familiar with Foucault’s dictum “truth is relative to context”? Hence the username (philosophy graduate here so familiar with discourses on truth). TruthAndContext (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]