User talk:Raidelaide

General chit-chat

What else are you interested in, besides the law and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, Raidelaide? --Danimations (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

—

The legal stuff is a big part, although I'm interested in South Australian heritage and important events in it's history. This Royal Commission is a rather interesting part of SA's history.

What are your interests? It looks like you're quite interested in Nuclear and Uranium mining in South Australia. --Raidelaide (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

—

I'm interested in history, law, energy, environment, politics- in no particular order and often in combination. --Danimations (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

SPA tag and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission article focus

Thanks for your note over on my talk page, Raidelaide. I'm reposting and expanding upon my response here.

After revisiting your contribs I can still see no evidence that your interest in contributing to this encyclopedia extends beyond the one article: Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. I am concerned that your contributions thus far to the encyclopedia have been dominated by subtraction of swathes of referenced content, which should have been individually appraised and in most cases, I would argue, moved rather than removed from the encyclopedia entirely.

Your eagerness to remove the WP:SPA tag placed beside your comments on the article's talk page is also concerning, since it was and continues to be an accurate description of your wikipedia contributions to date and therefore the status of your account. This is not unwarranted "personal tagging" but an accurate description of your account's status at the time you made those comments. Will you be expanding the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission article at all in the future, or any others? You haven't touched the article for a couple of weeks now (since the mass deletions) and the Commission's website has been updated and the RC has been referred to by a number of different parties in media reports in the intervening period. I hope that you will be assisting the expansion of the article (and others) in the future. --Danimations (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

—

Firstly to the deleted pretext section.

1. It was cumbersome and had no relevance to the topic. This is an online encyclopaedia not a personal blog. In other words the structure was written as if it were an introduction to an essay establishing a narrative of bias.
2. I had a second opinion that concurred that it was not relevant and therefore needed to be either forked out or removed.
3. Upon looking at the locations to be forked out to, you already in some cases had published the same information.

I'd like to know what, before the pretext section removal, references I deleted you have referred to? I only recall fixing up a title that was not consistent with the linked source which required 12 characters to be deleted.

Next to the single purpose issue.

1. I've only been on here two whole months now. In that time I have really only had the weekends, and the occasional weeknight, to do work and in that time I have been away on holidays.
2. I plan on contributing more on other topics, so I have been looking around where else I can help. As I have limited time this will take time.
3. In the very same WP:SPA policy you linked and used to justify the tagging it specifically states that new people will need time to establish themselves. You did not extend that curtesy to myself.
4. You got to the Korea trips and the first public hearings before I had a chance to even know they were occurring.
5. I came here from google looking for information. Found the page you created and found it very difficult to read, thus I offered to help.
6. In this time when I have made changes that you did not agree with you accuse me of having connections to either the Royal Commission or some other party (I'll come to my concerns re the WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NPOV below).

Now onto the issue of the WP:COATRACK that you are presently conducting. There are numerous wikipedia pages that you have only contributed a section on nuclear advocacy or similar topic to that respective wikipedia page, hence the lack of forking out. This combined with the original structure of the Royal Commission page has led me to first give some advice in the talk page there that it reads as a non-neutral POV and has hallmarks of someone dedicated to a specific topic to set a narrative. When this was responded with personal accusations of WP:COI and the like it signalled to me that this is a greater issue. I'm a person to give the benefit of a doubt.

Nevertheless when I stumbled upon a social media page dedicated to "watching" the Royal Commission during my efforts to connect with the Royal Commission and the similarities between names in an errant local directory file name in an edit on the Royal Commission page it confirmed my concerns with WP:ADVOCACY. Having a media and policy advisor of a political party with an anti-nuclear policy praise the creation of the Royal Commission page and the author it is very telling. Not to mention the numerous anti-nuclear posts. If this is correct there is a major issue with not only self promotion but posts specifically stating "For those of you with questions about the independence of this inquiry, please consider.....(link to the Royal Commissions wiki page)".

I've been very careful not to violate the doxxing policies on wikipedia. But you should now know, considering the username that you are using (Danimations), and the information I found that there are serious questions regarding your neutrality (WP:NPOV) and purpose on these issues.

Raidelaide (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)