User talk:PetroAntonio

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bacondrum (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. 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 lose their editing privileges. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.

Hey mate, welcome to Wikipedia. You need to stop edit warring as per WP:EDITWAR. Your addition to Bruce Pascoe has been reverted a number of times now, this would usually result in a block, but as you are new you should be given a few chances to understand what the issue is and to correct this behavior. Please read up on WP:BRD - You've been bold, your bold edit has been reverted and now you are expected to discuss it at the talk page rather than edit war. Here's the relevant talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruce_Pascoe. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scrap that - You need to declare your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and recuse yourself from editing relevant articles including Bruce Pascoe as writing about your own work is not permitted. You cannot promote your own work here. Bacondrum (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PetroAntonio, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PetroAntonio! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, PetroAntonio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Laterthanyouthink. This guy is the author of the book they are writing about Bitter Harvest. As you can see they have been made aware that they are prohibited from adding their own book and editing this article in a conflict of interest. I think this complete lack of ethical understanding, after previously having had the COI issues explained to them, warrants an ANI report for violating COI rules. Bacondrum 11:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bacondrum, yes, you could be right - but I wanted to ensure that they have the rules set out in front of them clearly and that they understand that good faith has been extended. (See also the DE talk page.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laterthanyouthink I know this for certain, they've both had it brought to their attention in the past, they know they should not be doing this. Bacondrum 11:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI and defamation

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bacondrum 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021 indefinitely blocked

This is a disruption only account.[1] Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PetroAntonio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I hope I have done this correctly. I understand that I have been blocked for disruptive editing. The only sub-category of disruptive editing that I believe I have been guilty of is "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research". I accept that I failed in this respect and, should I be re-instated, I undertake to ensure that this does not happen again PetroAntonio (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not address the concerns raised here. Yamla (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PetroAntonio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Last year I attempted, in good faith, to include a mention of my book Bitter Harvest in the Dark Emu section of the Bruce Pascoe article. I did not attempt to argue my case, just to highlight the fact that the book existed. When I became aware that I had inadvertently breached Wikipedia protocol, I argued my case for inclusion in the talk page. It was ruled that I had a conflict of interest. I respected that decision and have not since attempted to have the book included. Recently I engaged in discussion on the talk page of the Dark Emu article, supporting the inclusion of mention of Dr Ian Keen's academic paper as a valid criticism of Dark Emu. Again I made no attempt to argue my own case. I have no conflict of interest in respect of Dr Keen's article. It seems my conflict arises from the fact that I am a critic of Dark Emu, which, I accept, makes me a partisan player. But I do not believe that should preclude me from participation in discussion or even proposing edits to the article itself. Editor HiLo48, in arguing against the inclusion of Dr Keen's paper is also clearly a partisan player having declared that he/she "sees no point in reading Dr Keen's article because Dark Emu is an excellent book in which he/she can see no flaws". It is clear that many other editors are also in this camp. PetroAntonio (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I will not unblock you to continue editing/discussing Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu, due to your clear conflict of interest (it's not a conflict of interest regarding a specific paper, it's the subject itself). Wikipedia articles should be developed by disinterested editors who have no conflict of interest. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PetroAntonio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This ruling is contravention of Wikipedia's COI rule viz "Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent." It clearly allows me to discuss the article and propose amendments. That is what I did most recently. I proposed an amendment and invited other editors (other than HiLo48 - who has as much a COI as I do) to object. No-one did, so I posted the amendment. 2001:8004:1420:1A41:9C72:9020:C81E:9FAE (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Technical decline only. Unblock requests must be made logged in, so we know it's you. So please log in and make a new unblock request, and someone else will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Is anybody considering this request? PetroAntonio (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Full discussion that led to block here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Serious_conflict_of_interest_issues,_blatant_advocacy_and_defamation Bacondrum 00:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC) This is a very telling opinion piece penned by this editor: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/ Bacondrum 00:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review" thing applies to editors in good standing, not those who have repeatedly abused their privileges to push their own agenda. Oh, and you made your unblock request logged out, making it invalid. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

PetroAntonio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am now logged in. This ruling flies in the face of Wikipedia's COI rule viz "Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent." It clearly allows me to discuss the article and propose amendments. That is what I did most recently. I proposed an amendment and invited other editors (other than HiLo48 - who has as much a COI as I do) to object. No-one did, so I posted the amendment.PetroAntonio (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am now logged in.  This ruling flies in the face of Wikipedia's COI rule viz "Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent." It clearly allows me to discuss the article and propose amendments. That is what I did most recently. I proposed an amendment and invited other editors (other than HiLo48 - who has as much a COI as I do) to object. No-one did, so I posted the amendment.[[User:PetroAntonio|PetroAntonio]] ([[User talk:PetroAntonio#top|talk]]) 19:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am now logged in.  This ruling flies in the face of Wikipedia's COI rule viz "Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent." It clearly allows me to discuss the article and propose amendments. That is what I did most recently. I proposed an amendment and invited other editors (other than HiLo48 - who has as much a COI as I do) to object. No-one did, so I posted the amendment.[[User:PetroAntonio|PetroAntonio]] ([[User talk:PetroAntonio#top|talk]]) 19:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am now logged in.  This ruling flies in the face of Wikipedia's COI rule viz "Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent." It clearly allows me to discuss the article and propose amendments. That is what I did most recently. I proposed an amendment and invited other editors (other than HiLo48 - who has as much a COI as I do) to object. No-one did, so I posted the amendment.[[User:PetroAntonio|PetroAntonio]] ([[User talk:PetroAntonio#top|talk]]) 19:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

"Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article .... You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review..." also applies to editors in good standing, not those who have repeatedly abused their privileges to push their own agenda. Editors are frequently topic banned, formally, from specific subject areas, and I doubt anyone will unblock you without such a ban being either agreed by you or decided by community consensus. Would you like me to ask the community whether you should be subject to a topic ban? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

PetroAntonio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes please PetroAntonio (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Yes please [[User:PetroAntonio|PetroAntonio]] ([[User talk:PetroAntonio#top|talk]]) 20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Yes please [[User:PetroAntonio|PetroAntonio]] ([[User talk:PetroAntonio#top|talk]]) 20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Yes please [[User:PetroAntonio|PetroAntonio]] ([[User talk:PetroAntonio#top|talk]]) 20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}