User talk:JackB14

June 2010

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Fred Hollows Foundation‎, 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. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear LibStar, I am sorry that I did not give a reason for removing the content you just put back, as the space for such explanations seemed to be limited, I simply ran out of space. And thought it more important to outline how I had addressed the problems that were highlighted at the top of the page, namely bad referencing and biased language, which I thought I had adequately fixed. I also removed the "Achievements" section of the page, which you have not put back, as I was unable to independently verify their claims. As for why I removed that text, let me give you an explanation: Firstly I moved the funding of Alice springs hospital down to the Indigenous Australia section as it seemed not very appropriate for history, Secondly the financial story; it is a double negative, first the claim that they lost money, then a follow up that they did not. This is not history, it is just gossip mongering, someone quoted in an article says bad things about the foundation regarding money, days later the paper changes the story. To address the issue of financial impropriety I added an accreditation section, so that anyone could look at the rigorous financial standards required for Australian charities like Fred Hollows. If anything this is suitable for a "controversy" section, having it at the top of the page in the history section (and being put back) makes it seem that this is a personal issue for you not a matter of objectivity as is befitting an encyclopaedia. Also "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", with all due respect if being informed about the aid sector of Australia, and giving money to charity makes me unable to contribute to wikipedia then what is the point?JackB14 (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

are you employed by the Foundation or have any connection to it? LibStar (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

    No, but I give to them and others regularly. And I repeat my suggestion that you have a personal grudge rather than an objective need to keep putting that inaccurate statement.JackB14 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

no grudge, your attempts to censor out info is an indicator of possible conflict of interest. interesting that you've suddenly appeared on this page (like a number of other editors) to edit this article. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

   Again, with all due respect, I have outlined in various ways in which I feel that removing a conflicting statements from the history section is not censorship. Your insistance on putting one news story (of all the news stories, why that one?) in the history section with a rebuttable after it seems interesting to me. Are you a friend, acquaintance or something of the guy mentioned in the article? Or do you have some other conflict of interest? And yet you persist, the sky is blue, no its yellow, blue, yellow... and so we go on. The first part is flat out wrong, the second part says that, why put either in there, that is not censorship, that is accuracy. And if it remains, why have it in history, as mentioned before, a "controversy" section is appropriate. Also: Google Alerts, look it up. I read the first article when it came out, and then the retraction, the journalist was lazy and looking for a sexy headline and got it, what's your excuse? The sky is blue.JackB14 (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no connection with the journalist, Fred Hollows Foundation or anything else connected to the Foundation. see my edit history I edit a very wide variety of topics. simply removing the material without discussion is a clear indicator of bias on your part. it is now presented in a more neutral fashion, including the Hollows foundation rebuttal of the claim. how come you returned to edit this one article? coincidentially the same time a number of other people connected to the Foundation suddenly appeared? LibStar (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the story, not deleted it, and created a "controversy" section. And as I have stated the only "bias" that I have is giving money to that charity and caring about them, when I removed the whole thing without comment (which I explained the reason for) I did so in good faith. I came across the page with all the changes, and the things at the top saying it was unbalanced and poorly referenced, so I set about my first major effort to edit a wiki to fix the problems, and as I have explained removed what I thought was a superfluous text. Then you came along and pissed me off, so I kept on removing it. I hope that you can live with the changes I have made, I think that they are fair and balanced (not in the fox news way). As for any fred hollows staff, I don't know about that, but given the language used in the page when I came into this, it seems like it was just cut straight from their website. Something I feel I have fixed.JackB14 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you start editing a wide variety of articles to get a feel of how Wikipedia presents information. we do report both negative and positive information, simply removing negative info is not part of WP:NPOV. also, a week ago this article just seemed an advert for the foundation, with large copy and pastes from its website. it's better now but still needs work. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I am not into interested in contributing regularly at this point, perhaps in the future. I'm glad you think that my edits made it better. All the best.JackB14 (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Australian Labor Party (NSW) Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Australian Labor Party (NSW) Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Labor (NSW)

Hi JackB14. I'm sorry if my reverts came across as unwelcoming - it wasn't intended, but the page was about a completely different entity and was being changed so that the entire subject was different. I agree that pages about the individual state branches of the Labor Party would be a good idea, and obviously there would need to be some disambiguation going on with the Lang Labor page since it's potentially confusing. I would suggest you take the idea to WikiProject Australian politics or the Australian noticeboard, and the people there will be able to help come up with a good alternative name. The infobox etc. that used to be in the Lang Labor article is still in the history, so it isn't lost forever and will easily be retrievable. I hope this helps you, and once again I'm sorry if I made you feel unwelcome. Frickeg (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Frickeg, I appreciate the apology, and the suggestions, but as you can see from my talk page, I have not had good experiences with Wikipedia editors. In my limited experiences editors behave territorially with pages, and that is unwelcoming, and often rude. It didn't occur to you that my work might have been in good faith and that sending me a message saying "hey, thanks for what you did, but I have undone it, and here's why" might have been a nice thing to do? Anyway, thank you again for the apology, but I am not going to be doing what you suggested, burned again on wikipedia, not really interested in making it better at this point. Sounds like there is a place for discussion of the page in question, hope you go there and make Wikipedia better. Regards, JackB14 (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)