User talk:Gkable

Welcome!

Hello, Gkable, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! clpo13_(talk) 22:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Orthogonjal1 removed relevant material from court records. Nothing bias about it at all from Gkable. Neither a conflict of interest either. Simply removing legal transcript facts. What a judge or barrister said in a court of law. That material has been posted for many years. That is the truth of the matter. I simply put back what was deleted. I have also asked for full protection to prevent further vandalism.Gkable (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently CLPO 13 re removed the material suggesting bias from Gkable. Subsequently Gkable reposted the material. Subsequently CLPO 13 cited a COL tag. This was wrong. Gkable (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Gkable (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

I just got your message on my talk page. Please see Talk:Kable_v_Director_of_Public_Prosecutions_(NSW) for the reasons that I removed it - I never once said the word bias. WP:Edit warring is against Wikipedia policy. You should try to discuss the topic and come to an agreement. Even when I have given you many chances to talk about it, you haven't, and have just kept reverting my edit without giving a reason other than calling it vandalism. Do not revert the page again until we have come to consensus on the article's talk page. Doing so may be considered edit warring, which can result in penalties, including a ban. Orthogonal1 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   You would do better to answer the talk. Removing transcript material from a legal page is vandalism. Simply trying to hide the truth. Vandalism is against any good will and it is you who should show some respect. This material has been posted for years. Please decist. Thanks.Gkable (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Under the heading Aftermarth 2 the talk tab discussion reads....

Othogonal1 would you or any other readers please not remove relevant transcript material and claim some reason like bias. You know it's the truth and the truth hurts. Those comments were made by senior judges and barristers in the courts. These are officers of the court. That is who they are and who they represent.Gkable (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     In relation to the bias comment it appears CLPO 13 and you have the same mo laying down wikipedia rules to suit your own vandalism and bias. Both came within ear shot of the other, because it is you. Please find something constructive to do.Gkable (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      When reporting a user here, your own behaviour will also be scrutinized. There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy; The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.Gkable (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually you never explained why you removed the judges comments? If you wanted to discuss that then why didnt you? Because you came to remove and vandalise the truth under your heading that you have cleaned it up. But actually messed it up. Destructively. By removing facts not what I or some editor said.Gkable (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that I did explain.

From the talk page:

The copyright in them is owned by the Courts
The extracts were way too long for a Wikipedia article - Wikipedia should summarise the important points in the article, and provide links to the transcripts if anyone wants to see them.

I never objected to you including information about what the judges said, or including small quotes. I just think that we don't need *everything* - for example, I don't see how "AT 3.47 PM SHORT ADJOURNMENT UPON RESUMING AT 3.51 PM:" helps anyone.

Now that I think about it, seeing as Kable 2 was a different case, do you think that we should give it its own page? I'd be happy to leave that page alone and let you do what you want to it. Orthogonal1 (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The matter is a court case. You removed adverse comments? There is also defamatory material reported here by others that is also a conflict of interest. What the transcripts do is balance that defamation. Which means wikipedia don't have to be sued for liable. There are many wikpedia pages that are longer. Every law student in Australia studies the Kable Doctrine in order to attain their law degree. That is why it is balanced and has been there for many years until you came along. Kable 2 is the same case. The short adjournment comment shows the speed at which the judges took to make their decision. Some readers would be most suprised. Gkable (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the defamatory material in the article? I thought that the article was all true. Wikipedia has a strict policy about removing any unsourced negative statements about living people. If you can point to the statements that you don't think we can prove, and we can't prove them, then they will be removed from the article.

You're right about the fact that the short adjournment could have significance. I think that more readers would notice this if, instead of quoting the transcript, we replaced that part with something like "After hearing arguments, the court adjourned for four minutes, and then decided to refuse New South Wales' application for special leave to appeal"? Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

          Defamatory material is what other editors wrote about the case not what was transcribed in a court. Better to just leave their descriptions to help describe the case for law students. What is truth? All eds have bias so do all judges, barristers etc. The facts of the case and the matter are a true event. This article is not about perfection because perfection is a fallacy. What was written about me I can tolerate otherwise it would have been removed or edit. Some of it over the years has been corrected. However What was transcribed in a court of law is more reliable and accurate and in terms of the short ajournment fact. So facts should remain in transcript for law students to follow the letter of the law. No need to change facts.

So you see your argument about I'm at war doesn't exist really. I didn't write the article. Actually I love everyone. Anyone can come here and write defamation about me a living person who has feelings. I have no choice but to defend it, so banning me means I have to sue and can claim exemplary reason for damages. Also I have asked wikipedia to lock the page so that radical editors don't breach my tolerance any more but to date they have refused. That is also grounds for liable.

This case started over 20 years ago and is finished. All have had time to edit and my patience is running out over the many years defending it and wikipedia should be able to understand that I am able to tolerate what has been written so far otherwise it would have been sued. And now lock the page. Gkable (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, nor Wikipedia, so I think that the best course of action would be for you to contact legal@wikimedia.org. They get many requests like this, and they know our policies much better than me. All editors, including me, have to accept their decision, so it would probably be more efficient for you to talk to them. Let me know when they write back and what their decision was.

Finally, while we might have got off to a difficult start, it's been wonderful talking to you and I am honestly happy to say that I have had this conversation. And I just want to congratulate you on convincing the High Court to give all Australians new constitutional rights. Everyone is better off because of your case. Orthogonal1 (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Gee thanks. If eds understand and are not radical then I too can wisper words of wisdom and just let it be. Sometimes trying too hard for change is not called for. I am also glad to have discussed these issues with you and will use the legal link to wickipedia for a future discussion if necessary. I will also counter my claim on you wiki page so that you wont be villified for any statement I have made.Gkable (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greg, I was just wondering if you heard back from the legal team. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I'm asking is, when we spoke in May, I was under the impression that you would contact the legal team and we would both abide by their decision, and it would be very helpful to know what that is. Orthogonal1 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gkable (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)hi Orthogonal1 I did not contact any legal authorities. Actually Im currently in hospital fighting cancer getting kimo and radiation. I would appreciate it if you could just be at peace. Thanks.[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this on the noticeboard. You really need to read the Wikipedia page on reliable sources and remember that YOU are not a reliable source. We strongly prefer secondary sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Blogs and other self-published sources are very rarely considered reliable sources. You are in a situation that's happened before where the subject of an article wants to interject their views, particularly when there are controversial aspects involved. You really need to limit yourself to using the article talk page and suggesting edits based on good sources. That's the most helpful way for you to contribute to this article. Ravensfire (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~ Oh and you are a reiable source compaired to the court transcripts you removed? Youve gone out of your way to defame the writer.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hi. I've put together a thread discussing you are the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, specifically here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~ Oh and you are a reliable source beside the court transcripts you removed?

~~ Youve gone out of your way to defame the writer with false and misleasing lies without any balance or right of reply. Oh no you cant post the aftermath posted by someone else. You cant take them to the court transcripts as they lie?

October 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Katie^talk 00:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]