User talk:Actuwebcampaigner

Edits to ACTU
Hi. Thanks for contributing to ACTU. Your most recent contribution on the ACTU's representation of workers regardless of party holding government was reverted for three reasons: Your other edits on ACTU were pretty good. Despite (given your user name) ACTU employment, your contributions are encyclopedic and neutral in point of view.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Relevance to the section on the CPA & the ACTU
 * 2) Citation required for this fact, many would consider the Wages and Prices Accord to be a counter-indication
 * 3) Weasel words: "Recently". Recently since the Rudd ministry?  Recently since the Howard ministry (which one)?  Recently since the Keating ministry?

Thanks for the explanation. And being sensitive to the need for openness I felt it important to ensure that wikipedia contributors knew who was making the edits Actuwebcampaigner (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your continuing edits. You might want to learn that the standards of proof at wikipedia are higher than self-referential citations.  Also, blanket deleting of balanced critical evaluations isn't warranted. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No information was deleted just moved. And in fact the last round of edits was purely to update the wiki so there is a clear distinction between 'current' and 'past' campaigns. I felt these changes were necessary to provide clarity for visitors to the ACTU page and so that the information is up-to-date. Thanks Actuwebcampaigner (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Argh, I just realised I suffered from "one screen blindness". Reverted to your version. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Actuwebcampaigner
A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Actuwebcampaigner, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages: user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for businesses.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page in question and leave a note on this page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Calton | Talk 03:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)