Talk:Robert Brokenshire

Article review needed
This article appears to have been dragged in to the gutter by various editors. Can someone with a bit of time review and clean up the page as needed? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine. If there's an issue, you can raise it here. What I'd like to know however, is what's been done to remove the previous discussion? I'd like to make it known most folks think Wikipedia is not a place for censorship. As a simple case example, the Bernard Finnigan page which you have been arguing so ardently about, trying to censor comments regarding quite evident criminal proceedings against him. Twigfan (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * An admin got involved due to "excessive battleground behaviour by a coterie of new and unreg users (likely socks)" and in one of his own text removals on this talk page had a reason of "on reflection, this entire discussion should go. it's infested with sockpuppets and serves no purpose". This was over a year ago so I don't have the best memory, so please feel free to go over each of the diffs and see why how that event panned out the way it did. As for the second comment, all sides have valid views, you need to learn to respect that, I and others who believe the same have laid out why numerous times. I can see that this is your first edit made only four days ago, so please, if i've used any terminology you don't understand, please let me know :) (admin sockcheck on isle 5 please!) Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Timeshift9 would you like to raise who this "admin" was? I love it how you recall the incident with, "I don't have the best memory" - classic marketing relations tactic?
 * With regard to your Bernard Finnigan deletions, your comment, that "you need to learn to respect that, I and others who believe the same have laid out why numerous times" forgets that, the judge and jury decided - you were wrong. Dead wrong. Not only was your reasoning dejected, but based on history, you went through the discussion page and removed all your comments, replacing it with "Self removal of talk, others have sufficiently contributed". So much for transparency.
 * Also, please don't treat me with contempt, with ridiculing comments like "if i've used any terminology you don't understand, please let me know" followed by the requisite smiley face. It is not appreciated. Also not appreciated is your allegation I am operating a sock puppet, ridiculing comments such as "admin sockcheck on isle 5 please!" are just plain contemptuous, and I believe against Wikipedia policy - WP:DNB and WP:AGF anybody?
 * For someone who had their userpage deleted for failing to uphold WP:NPOV I don't think you should be the one to be making these allegations. For people who are unaware of what I'm talking about User:Timeshift9 is being closely monitored by User:GorillaWarfare and User:Lear's Fool, etc. The whole discussion for deleting Timeshift9 can be found here. He was advised of WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTBLOG, advised advocacy, propoganda, recruitment, opinion, scandal mongering, and personal web pages was WP:What Wikipedia is not. To be quite frank with you, looking at your user page, I'd put you up for complaint again - but I'll let the admins do that. Twigfan (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Statement that "article appears to have been dragged in to the gutter" by User:Timeshift9 doesn't clearly enough delineate his particular issues. Twigfan (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked if I used any terminology that you don't understand, such as "history" and "diffs". If you knew what these were, you could find all the answers for yourself. The answers to all your questions is in the history tab above. Make all the accusations you want, the truth is on my side and the history tab proves it. As I said, this issue occurred well over a year ago. I have no further interest in being dragged in to a circular historical discussion by a 1-week-old account sock. I await the sockcheck and removal of this talkpage content which is irrelevant to this article. Timeshift (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You raised several points:
 * Accusations I (Twigfan) made? I didn't call you a sock, I didn't treat you with contempt, I didn't claim this article was "dragged in to the gutter". No sir, these are accusations you made.
 * Truth is on your (TimeShift's) side What truth? Truth the article has been dragged into the gutter? Truth I am a "sock" and "serve no purpose"? Truth I don't understand the "terminology"? Truth I'm making "accusations"? My apologies Sir, but as the propagator of these facts, it is your own onus to source these "truths".
 * History tab proves it Proves what? That your talk page was deleted?
 * I await... removal of this talkpage content which is irrelevant to this article Just like before, eh? Remove, remove. If others don't remove, you remove yourself (case study: Bernard Finnigan discussion page).
 * I really think you should be stripped of your editor rights. You are totally biting a newcomer!! You are calling me a "1-week-old account sock", when you clearly say you are awaiting a sockcheck. I just wonder why would any person go around with this type of paranoia? Twigfan (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just read someone previously called you a narcissist, schizoid, and antisocial. But I'm not surprised, pal, with your personal attacks against me. Just remember, WP:No personal attacks. Twigfan (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree: I arrived here via by following contributions by the editor of Dennis Hood and it would appear that both articles are rather hagiographic and in serious need of review. I'd help out but I have zero interest in provincial Australian politics. I did delete the photo of the terrier; that's just too much. Estevezj (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Changes made: I have tried to reduce some of the issues listed in the tags above this article by removing much of the unnecessary detail and grouping it into general topics of the subject's interest. I also deleted the description of the subject as "alternative premier" which was a semi-opinion piece by a Murdoch reporter in a Sunday Paper, as well as and positive descriptions of the subject featured in letters to the editor in the same publication. References to involvement with other people, such as Civil Liberties Council spokesman George Mancini and former Social Inclusion adviser Monsignor David Capppo were also removed as this seemed to imply credibility by association. The article may still need more work to achieve neutrality but this is a start. Paul J Heritage (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Brokenshire. 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/20071019030009/http://sa.familyfirst.org.au/ to http://sa.familyfirst.org.au/

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) 17:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)