User talk:AFComms

Robyn Parker
Hello, AFComms. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Robyn Parker, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.


 * please describe your connection to Robyn Parker? Why are you not interested in conceding she was demoted from cabinet. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am interested in the public discourse around our female parliamentarians. As you correctly note, I am a new editor but I believe my edits were neutral and in keeping with the desire to have a reference encyclopaedia. It was not a case of my unwillingness to concede a demotion - because quite clearly Ms Parker is no longer in her ministerial role - but rather an objection to the 'end of ministerial career' statement. I also thought that interpreting my edits as support and using that as the basis for what is supposed to be an accurate reference was not right. I note that your edits have been referencing the more negative press Ms Parker received and I believe the page may benefit from some more balanced citations that do not solely rely on newspaper articles - Hansard for example. I would be interested in your thoughts on that in this talk page. User:AFComms
 * so are you actually going to edit other articles? And if Robyn Parker did such a sterling job as you believe she wouldn't have lost her ministry. LibStar (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is a code of conduct that requires editors to act with civility and edit with a view to improve the encyclopedia and it feels a bit like a political blog rather than a reference site now. Perhaps your relationship to the subject or others in politics should be questioned. AFComms
 * really? WP:KETTLE, you've only edited one article refer single purpose editor. secondly you never answered my question about you having a connection to Parker and whether you intend to edit other articles. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BITE


 * still waiting for your response, do you have a connection to Parker and do you intend to edit other articles. A non response would indicate yes and no respectively. LibStar (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I am choosing not to interact with you further on this page. This was my first foray into Wikipedia and was something I was doing in my spare time. While it was my intention to become familiar with the platform on a subject I was interested in, you have made the experience unpleasant and I have not decided whether I will edit any other pages. Improving reference material was my intention and I believe my edits have been neutral and attempted to balance other edits that relied upon news sources which do not always tell the whole story. AFComms
 * the focus of your editing indicates a clear connection to Parker, for example you tried to remove several times information that paints her in not so good light and pretended she wasnt demoted from the ministry. Media reports range fromn axed and sacked from the ministry. WP relies on third party sources, your over reliance on Hansard is actually a primary source. You claim to be interested in female parliamentarians but haven't even bothered to even edit another female MP article. I can therefore include you have some connection to Parker which indicates a clear conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Julia Baird (May 31)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zach_Vega&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

Zach Vega ( talk to me ) 20:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Replaceable fair use File:Robyn Parker MP.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Robyn Parker MP.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

seems like
Your beloved Parker will never return to the ministry despite you hoping she will. If she did a good job, Baird would never have axed her. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Parker has now gone... Wonder if you'll now edit other articles instead of spruiking Parker? LibStar (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)