User talk:AlbionIsle

BNP text
Morning AlbionIsle. I have reverted your deletion of text. As you can see, the text has the claim and the counter-claim, with sources, so it is not a "smear". Instead it is a documented piece of evidence - this is the claim, this is the reaction, and these are the sources. It is not up to Wikipedia to be bias, we have to show both sides, which is what we've done in this case. Please remember that Wiki works on consensus, so deleting text without talking about it first is frowned upon. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The text is irrelevant to the page, and the only reason you want it up is because you are Lib Dem and want to smear the BNP. Note how no other party has nonsense or smears by their name on the same page, but the BNP has a load of lies/rubbish just to give them a bad name to loose them votes. Seen it all before so many times. AlbionIsle (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the manner in which the candidate was chosen, it is relevant to the article. I need to remind you about WP:CIVIL and, for that matter, WP:3RR, which ensures editors do not enter a revert war about contentious text. Carlos' selection is contentious, and Wikipedia requires readers to be aware of the full nature of his selection. Remember that we have been exceptionally fair - there's the claim and counter-claim with sources, exactly what Wikipedia requires in an article. I do not want to enter into an edit war with you, but please can you go to the Talk page of the London Mayoral article, where you'll find that this entire thing was discussed before you came along and it was agreed to leave the piece as it was. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)