FindOutTheTruth

Welcome!

Hello, FindOutTheTruth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Safe Schools Coalition Australia seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 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 lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GAB^Hello! 02:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Safe schools Coalition Association with Pedophilia Advocate

NickD. Please explain why you have blocked me for my contribution to wiki as shown below. It is neutrally worded. In fact it is a paraphrase of the ABC news article which it references. Its not my own opinion. Please explain your motivation. Thanks.

Christensen revealed that Professor Gary Dowsett who had helped establish the Safe schools campaign was a "longtime advocate of intergenerational sex, otherwise known as paedophilia". A Latrobe University spokeman responded by saying "We stand by the important work of Professor Dowsett and his team."

Talkpage reply

In reply to your so-called "safe schools coalition association with pedophilia" talk section you left on my userpage: You sound just like George Christensen. Anywho... even you cannot bring yourself to attempt to claim your attempted changes were neutral... only "fairly" neutral. Your attempted changes are not neutral and does not even attempt to hide the fact you are cherry-picking references to express your minority anti-mainstream fringe (and dangerous) views. Perhaps look at the article's history and you'll see I was only the first of three users to remove your hate views. The fact your history shows you joined wikipedia and went straight to and only to that article for some opinionated but misinformed soapboxing which appears close to your heart - highly revealing in itself. In any case... the way wikipedia works is in the case of an edit dispute, the existing status quo remains and the contested new changes are kept out, until such time as the user attempting to introduce the disputed changes either a) manages to gain consensus on the article's talk page or b) realises the error of their ways and moves on. I'm not giving any help or 'tips' to the likes of you. Your moral shortcomings more than explain how you manage to convince yourself that your attempted contributions were somehow mainstream-acceptable. I'm sure you're currently sitting there thinking we're all just a bunch of 'queer gender theory marxists' or whatever strained slogan is all the latest rage in the Christensen/Bernardi 'silent majority' quarterly. Timeshift (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked this account as it was being used only to push a point of view, as was obvious from the talk page posts being used to justify the edits in question: [1] [2] Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, good move - one can only wonder how much of our time and effort you've pro-actively salvaged. Timeshift (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, Sorry you have seemed to passed judgement on my political leaning already without a fair chance. Will you give us a chance to come to to a consensus on the this matter. I wont edit the safe schools wiki until we reach a consensus. NickD has explained the rule. Please unblock me. Thanks

More than enough fair chance was given. "Safe Schools Coalition association with Pedophilia" - straight out of the Christensen/Bernardi attack playbook. One out of the many people involved with the SSC happened to make mention of pedophilia in the 1980s and suddenly to those of a certain straw-grasping ilk, it somehow gives license to libelliously tar the entire SSC as somehow "associated" with pedophilia. Won't somebody please think of the children! What a disgrace. Retreat back in to your safe-zone of the latest Christensen/Bernardi 'silent majority' quarterly and leave wikipedia alone. Timeshift (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Come on Time Shift. That's a bit harsh isn't it? comparing me to a politician! Please dont be rude. When you say one out of the many people involved in SSC made mention of pedophilia in the 1980s do you understand the context of what he was writing then and how it so very consistant with queer theory. I'm getting a little bit of an idea that you are wanting to silence debate and just put labels on people? What is the consensus then? Block anyone from wiki who you suspect has a different view of the world then yourself? If people want to read about the public relations material for SSC they can go to their website. If they want an objective opinion including discussion of controversial issues than they come to wikipedia. Lets try to be nice eh?

FindOutTheTruth, I can't remember the last time I came across a wiki user that had an extreme and blatant concurrent trifecta of guideline-violation, offensiveness, and repulsiveness - both matter-of-fact and personally. Such a rare user coupled with such illogical persistence, I really don't care how i'm perceived or the potential for consequences. Example: Its views like yours that have directly caused some of the most vulnerable in our society and most in need of community support to commit suicide. The world would be better off without you, and if hell exists, there is a special place in it reserved for people like you. Is that concrete enough? Timeshift (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked - repeated reverting to my own edit and I will not do it again. I'll try to reach a consensus wih the other editors or just let it go

Decline reason:

Your request failed to convince me. Yamla (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

---

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.