This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Andrew Bogut. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Bogut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Bogut_signing regarding press conference tomorrow about Bogut and Sydney.— Bagumba ( talk) 11:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The
FIBA Under-19 World Cup MVP award for an under-19 age tournament is
WP:UNDUE to bloat Bogut's infobox further. It's mentioned in the article still. Per
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.
—
Bagumba (
talk)
08:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The reason for the latest lock was edit warring over sourced content; DaHuzyBru deleted the content last [1]. The rationale doesn't hold--there was clearly not a consensus to remove the content, and the accounts removing it were all new WP:SPAs, not a discernible 'community.' If SF Gate isn't deemed enough of a source by itself, it's not hard to find WP:RELIABLE sources. For Pizzagate, [2]. For vaccine rant, [3]. It may well be debated whether the content belongs here as WP:NOTNEWS, and I welcome others to weigh in. It also appears that his views are more nuanced than the headlines suggest. But if we're deleting it, let's do so with a real rationale, and with consensus. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 23:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
... not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.It seems we're now in the discuss phase of WP:BRD.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I can certainly add more sources to back these points up. Currently, my main issue particularly is this part "In 2021, via his Instagram account, he further claimed that the Australian government's lockdowns, prompted by a rapid rise in COVID-19 infections were a scheme disproportionately experienced by the working class.[62]As contagion rose, " the rest of the section I suppose I could live with being labelled conspiracy although questionable and i mean currently the main source of this "new edit" is from SF gate i mean, a San francisco newspaper is not reliable for an Australian problem, Bogut also states "So we should let it rip? No we shouldn't let it rip, but we also shouldn't be locking down the way we are, I think there's a middle ground." it is no conspiracy to suggest that Australia/Victoria has botched the handling of this - thoughts? - Cheers Agnesblack77 ( talk) 13:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Of course, i can certaintly agree to that Neiltonks, I was just new to this and was just trying to level the argument quickly and was underprepared is all haha but here are more [13] [14] this report here from the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee states "the pandemic continues to have an unprecedented impact on all Victorians, some groups have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic including: the homeless, people with a low socio-economic background, insecure workers, Aboriginal Victorians, those who are culturally and linguistically diverse, women and young people." [15] so that claim is substantial, I could gather more sources for this if needed but hopefully the above suffice. As for the calling out celebrities I can see this may be a controversial opinion but does that mean a conspiracy theory? i thought that usually concerned something secret and illegal and there is heaps of advertisements and stuff of celebs promoting public health advice in our media, i am not saying it is wrong but as i linked in above articles on this point ^^ our celebrities are moving with a lot more agency here. and here are some articles about celebrity endorsement [16] [17] Guy Sebastian recently got in hot water here for backing away from promoting this stuff but as he said and 50/50 here would agree "it is not there place" [18] this does not classify as conspiracy to be angry about people who are skipping quarantine [19] and moving with more freedom [20] than your average joe but perhaps you guys may have a different opinion on this point though? (but the rest i feel definitely has sufficient evidence) Cheers Agnesblack77 ( talk) 13:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
References
ok cool! i tried again hopefully that is better. thanks Agnesblack77 ( talk) 12:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
oh thats even better thank you Bagumba! best regards Agnesblack77 ( talk) 14:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Andrew Bogut. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Bogut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Bogut_signing regarding press conference tomorrow about Bogut and Sydney.— Bagumba ( talk) 11:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The
FIBA Under-19 World Cup MVP award for an under-19 age tournament is
WP:UNDUE to bloat Bogut's infobox further. It's mentioned in the article still. Per
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.
—
Bagumba (
talk)
08:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The reason for the latest lock was edit warring over sourced content; DaHuzyBru deleted the content last [1]. The rationale doesn't hold--there was clearly not a consensus to remove the content, and the accounts removing it were all new WP:SPAs, not a discernible 'community.' If SF Gate isn't deemed enough of a source by itself, it's not hard to find WP:RELIABLE sources. For Pizzagate, [2]. For vaccine rant, [3]. It may well be debated whether the content belongs here as WP:NOTNEWS, and I welcome others to weigh in. It also appears that his views are more nuanced than the headlines suggest. But if we're deleting it, let's do so with a real rationale, and with consensus. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 23:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
... not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.It seems we're now in the discuss phase of WP:BRD.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I can certainly add more sources to back these points up. Currently, my main issue particularly is this part "In 2021, via his Instagram account, he further claimed that the Australian government's lockdowns, prompted by a rapid rise in COVID-19 infections were a scheme disproportionately experienced by the working class.[62]As contagion rose, " the rest of the section I suppose I could live with being labelled conspiracy although questionable and i mean currently the main source of this "new edit" is from SF gate i mean, a San francisco newspaper is not reliable for an Australian problem, Bogut also states "So we should let it rip? No we shouldn't let it rip, but we also shouldn't be locking down the way we are, I think there's a middle ground." it is no conspiracy to suggest that Australia/Victoria has botched the handling of this - thoughts? - Cheers Agnesblack77 ( talk) 13:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Of course, i can certaintly agree to that Neiltonks, I was just new to this and was just trying to level the argument quickly and was underprepared is all haha but here are more [13] [14] this report here from the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee states "the pandemic continues to have an unprecedented impact on all Victorians, some groups have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic including: the homeless, people with a low socio-economic background, insecure workers, Aboriginal Victorians, those who are culturally and linguistically diverse, women and young people." [15] so that claim is substantial, I could gather more sources for this if needed but hopefully the above suffice. As for the calling out celebrities I can see this may be a controversial opinion but does that mean a conspiracy theory? i thought that usually concerned something secret and illegal and there is heaps of advertisements and stuff of celebs promoting public health advice in our media, i am not saying it is wrong but as i linked in above articles on this point ^^ our celebrities are moving with a lot more agency here. and here are some articles about celebrity endorsement [16] [17] Guy Sebastian recently got in hot water here for backing away from promoting this stuff but as he said and 50/50 here would agree "it is not there place" [18] this does not classify as conspiracy to be angry about people who are skipping quarantine [19] and moving with more freedom [20] than your average joe but perhaps you guys may have a different opinion on this point though? (but the rest i feel definitely has sufficient evidence) Cheers Agnesblack77 ( talk) 13:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
References
ok cool! i tried again hopefully that is better. thanks Agnesblack77 ( talk) 12:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
oh thats even better thank you Bagumba! best regards Agnesblack77 ( talk) 14:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)