User talk:Skyring

Guantanamo detention camp

You have deleted the same text 4 times within a few hours. The last time while a discussion was clearly ongoing on the talk page. Your edit war is useless and does not help us to build an encyclopedia. Al these claims can be easily verified with simple google searches as i have explained on the talk page. What is your edit war about? Please try to fix things instead of time wasting deletion of information you might not like. I invite you to work with me. Thank you. NinaDownstreet (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. Possibly you do not share the same sleep cycle as I do. It is now four in the morning, and I apologise for any delay in addressing your concerns.

WP:BLP allows for unsourced content to be removed immediately by any editor. This can be done once, thrice, a hundred times in the face of someone determined to add unsourced biographical material.
I see different material being deleted. The first instance was of material sourced from an unreliable source, namely a private blog.
You inserted material supposedly supported by cites to The Sydney Morning Herald. Your Bold move was Reverted - with reasons given - and you should Discuss the situation. Instead you chose to repeatedly reinsert it.

Your account has few edits on it. Perhaps you would be so good as to indicate how long and how many edits make up your own personal participation in Wikipedia? But, regardless of that, if you do not understand Wikipedia policy, it is always best to seek assistance. There are many who are glad to help. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian and Climate change

You are not allowing and misinterpreting articles that do not suit your political agenda. Two studies of articles and editorials have found the Australian is OVERWHELMINGLY biased to those who either dismiss the scientific consensus or deny the need for action. The opposition to the policy is a lesser theme (they mostly oppose any labor policy - and supported an ETS until it became a point of difference between the major parties). You are not allowing these to go on the site. I see you do similar partisan 'work' on other sites. I have reported your activities to wikipedia. I hope they give you the boot so you can go and get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.5.254 (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What 'partisan' outlook am I supposed to support, precisely? I'm interested in untwisting spin and keeping articles in line with wikipolicy, and I can see how that would grate with some editors. I think if we keep civil, keep true to established procedures, keep working at serving reliable information to our readers, we're doing fine. Regardless of political opinion. I commend the Five Pillars to you. --Pete (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile conduct and random accusations.

Pete, your recent conduct has been getting increasingly hostile. This really is not appropriate. It is quite possible to have sensible discussions and reach agreement about articles without edit warring and personal attacks. Please have a look at how Merbabu deals with people who he does not immediately agree with. Merbabu's political slant appears rather closer to yours than mine, and yet he and I are quite capable of engaging in a logical discussion and agreeing on a result supported by the evidence. Your current accusations about unidentified editors being sock puppets better not be aimed at me (I seem to be your favourite target at the moment). If you want to allege that I am a sock puppet I suggest you initiate a RfCu immediately, as I will not tolerate such rediculous slurs against me, especially from someone who behaves so poorly themselves. I hope we can sort this issue out without further vitriol. Regards, Owen. Djapa Owen (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your concerns. To put it plainly, you are wrong in your assumptions. I suggest that you follow the established wikipolicies and you will find that things proceed a lot easier. I'm sorry if you feel uncomfortable here. --Pete (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very interesting response.

I am glad you are not aiming your accusation at me, but it is still not good form to make general accusations without saying who you are referring to. If you have a reasonable suspicion of sock puppet activity please act on it, as this is not a thing which should be tolerated. If you have no grounds to make the accusation then it should not be made, that would be slander in the real world.

As for following policy, being ex-defence and working in education I am used to following policy and make every effort to do so here. Unfortunately I think you are not following policy though. For example, policy states that talk pages are for discussion of the topic in hand, not soap boxing or attacks on other editors which is why I support HiLo48's deletion of the whole 'tag teeming' section. Constantly reinserting your original comment while deleting all responses is as childish as the "kitchen sink" and "wrist watches" comments you inserted. I suggest you accept the general consensus shown that 'tag teeming' is a waste of space and not illustrating appropriate Wikipedian behaviour. I am sure things will proceed a lot more easily if YOU follow Wikipolicies.

Finally, I feel perfectly comfortable here. I comment only because your behaviour is increasingly offensive, and I have been brought up to tell people when they are behaving poorly.

I hope this solves your misconceptions. Djapa Owen (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! As I said, you are wrong. I suggest that you check WP:TALK for advice on when it is appropriate to delete the contributions of other editors. On that point, if you don't have anything useful to say, I've got other tasks. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]