Talk:Peter Lindsay

UNDO ACTIVITY BY FRICKEG
Please do not reverse edits to this page which reference recent activity by Peter Lindsay. The edit I made was accurate and I referenced a page which included direct correspondence from Peter Lindsay. FYI: Party political edits are not permitted on Wikipedia, as far as I am aware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.152.38 (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you referenced a blog ("Women for Schapelle") which is not acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person. Find a legitimate, reliable source and it'll be fine. And FYI: unfounded accusations of political bias are a gross violation of assuming good faith. Frickeg (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I accused you of nothing. And I asked a legitimate question on your talk page, citing some of the information about you and your activities which has been brought to my attention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frickeg


 * I should also add though that this political party has a history of gross manipulation of Wikipedia. Anyone recall the proven political edits from the Prime Ministers office whilst Howard was in charge?


 * And for your information, the source is not simply a blog, it is a log of solid information, reporting directly from direct interactions with numerous organizations an doffices of state. To attempt to discredit such a credible source, which is read daily at the highest levels within Australian politics, is a little feeble. 217.42.152.38 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a blog? It's on Blogspot, for goodness' sake. Doesn't matter how influential the blog may or may not be (I don't see much evidence of influence myself), it's still a blog. As for the party business, you strongly implied that my edits were "party political", an insinuation which had no basis in fact. (And "brought to your attention"? What on earth is going on here?) Frickeg (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you cease making insinuations that you can't back up, anonymous. Blogs, including, yes, your own, are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia, and making unsupported allegations about a respected and long-time Wikipedia editor is not going to change that policy. Rebecca (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Insinuation, Rebecca? Like the one YOU just made: "including, yes, your own"? That is frankly abusive. I have no link with it whatsover, but like many politicians and MPs, I read it almost every day. It is a credible and remarkable reference, whether you choose to face that fact or not.


 * I suspect Frickeg is probably a grown up by the way, and doesn't need a third party fawning with totally false allegations on his behalf.


 * And as I have explained, the source is not simply a blog, it is a log of solid information, reporting directly from direct interactions with numerous organizations and offices of state. As it states on there somewhere, it is live dossier, being created for future litigation and other formal uses.


 * Where it is hosted and what template it uses (blogspot) is not relevent in the least. It is the content that matters, which is why you will see many blogspot hosted sites referenced on Wikipedia. I state this as you don't seem to understand.


 * the fact is that it is a wholly reasonable edit, with an excellent reference.


 * Censorship is always ugly. 217.42.152.38 (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh. All I can say is that if this had a reliable source I'd be more than happy to have it in the article. A blog is not a reliable source, no matter how many unsubstantiated allegations that "many politicians and MPs" read it almost every day. (Can I remind you that the blog is about Schapelle Corby?) Frickeg (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Blogspot is by definition an unreliable source. You certainly won't "see many blogspot hosted sites referenced on Wikipedia" - you shouldn't be seeing any, and thought I doubt you have, feel free to point them out if so so that they can be removed. Rebecca (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Try actually reading my words, Rebecca. Blogspot is a platformm that doesn't just host blogs. Got it, now? Wikipedia references information sources. Got that too? There is no ban on the host known as Blog spot. Are we there yet?


 * Frickeg - Your refusal to acknowledge the status of information sources which are not, shall we say, sanctioned by establishment entities like the Liberal Party, is a route to maintain status quo, and prevent the free flow of valuable information. Also known as censorship.


 * I am well aware that the Liberal Party do not want the information on that blog to be widely known, as it clearly exposes corruption and complicity against Schaplle Corby, but the information is there, and there should be no censorship of it.


 * Credible references sources are not limited to the printed media, which in Australia is not free, as all major newspapers are owned by just two corporations. The effective media censorship in Australia should not be enforced by people like you on Wikipedia.86.145.82.75 (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel I'm wasting my time here, but I'll go ahead and say it anyway. On Wikipedia we as editors maintain a neutral point of view. Having accused me of being biased, you have then gone on to demonstrate pretty clearly that your own efforts are motivated by your agenda. Blogs are non-reliable sources according to Wikipedia policy. If you don't like that, take it up somewhere else. Frickeg (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem here Mr Anonymous is that you fail to grasp what we do and don't allow on wikipedia. Just because something is true, it does not mean it automatically warrants inclusion. This is just one of the criteria when editors judge if a contribution is suitable for an article within this encyclopedia. Certainly negatives are not censored on wikipedia, but at the same time wikipedia is not a dumping ground for laundry lists of criticisms. Mostly, criticism of an MP and it's eligability on wikipedia will revolve a lot around whether it's true, how it's phrased, and doesn't come across as a "WP:RECENTism. Policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT need to be considered, amongst others. Perhaps familiarise yourself with wikipedia guidelines and what other MPs have on their pages before you come to conclusions regarding editors and what is and isn't allowed and what processes need to be followed on wikipedia. Because right now it's obvious you're shooting from the hip, compounded by guideline ignorance. This is why on your current line of attack when it comes to your contributions will not get you anywhere. Timeshift (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit was not a criticism - it was a demonstration of contempt for the public by an MP, which is relevent to this page. The response was to delete it on the basis that the reference was a blog, merely it seems because it was hosted on Blogspot. It is apparent even now that some sort of blindness exists to logic: a limited outlook which cannot grasp that Blogspot is merely a platform which can host information as well as opinion. You cannot rationalize with stupidity like that.


 * There is little benefit in arguing with you people, as you are too entrenched in procedure and dogma. The bottom line however is that you have censored, however you dress it up. Your locations obviously raise rational questions as well, but whatever your motives, you do a discredit to Wikipedia, which to most obverservers is actually fairly discredited already. 86.145.82.75 (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you thought wikipedia was discredited you would not care about wikipedia or your contribution. Note that nobody has said it cannot be added to the article. The way it is phrased and the reference used both mean it was unsuitable in the form it was added. Please look around wikipedia, from guidelines to articles, to see how users contribute to the encyclopedia. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I seriously suggest that you look at some of the quasi-commercial topics on here. I don't mean look, I mean investigate. The sheer number of pages effectively dancing to the tune of specific commercial interests is staggering. Cartelism rife, with some editors unaware of how they are being played. That ignorance and naivity is not limited to there though, with varying degrees elsewhere. This isn't fiction.  86.145.82.75 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please, if you want to keep editing here, you will need to follow wikipedia guidelines. If you don't want to edit here or you can't follow the guidelines, that's your choice. Timeshift (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Awww.... go on then... kick me off. That's what usually happens to truth bringers and whistleblowers in Australia, isn't it? 86.145.82.75 (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No one's kicking you off, just telling you to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Frickeg (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Lindsay. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505201610/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/biography.asp?id=HK6 to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/biography.asp?id=HK6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725074908/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=HK6 to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=HK6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)