User talk:Chrisdbarnett

Reply
Hey Chris, thanks for leaving the requests for the BNP. Sorry it's been a bit of a slow process but I'm working on it. The location of headquarters is Fixed, and I'm  Doing... research and corrections on the membership as we speak. Just a heads up I'd take a quick look at the policies on conflicts of interest, especially the advice for editing with one. I'll look into the membership and the source and keep you posted, and if you need anything else go over to my talk page or ping me with  in a message. I'm going to leave a standared welcome message here too, just because it contains links you may find useful. Happy editing and welcome!  Kharkiv07 Talk  23:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

re: British National Party page
You wrote, "I can help with all of the sources for the figures. All I want is that all political parties are treated fairly. Are you interested in helping out with this or not?"

If you want help, you should have ended your comment there. I realize you're frustrated. If no other sources are available, then I don't see how to make any further progress. Sorry. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Other sources are available. You refuse to use them.

If a tweet from UKIP as a source is good enough for UKIP figures, then why aren't their enemies being quoted as a source?

If a blog post from the Green party is good enough for Green membership figures then why aren't enemy sources quoted as a source?

If we are treated differently than every other political party, then political bias is a reasonable conclusion to draw.

There is 2 possible sources for BNP membership figures.

A) The electoral commission.

B) A left wing newspaper, quoting a left wing source - Hope Not Hate.

I have explained to you why A is more reliable and fair than B - you agreed at first....like most wiki editors do - then you came back and acted ignorant.

Please do not come back and say other sources aren't available, when clearly they are.

I have led you logically, A-B-C 1 2 3 through every step of the way...you agree with me on every point and at the end of it all 2 and 2 is 5 and the sky is green and "I'm confused....I can't see how etc"

Honestly.....you have day...then night...the day...then night...so after night comes...."erm sorry...I'm confused...I can't see how I can help you with that....I know you're frustrated...."

Fine let's get an army of editors to make up blogs of random thought up figures for memberships of various political parties and then update their pages.

I think Labour have 250 members. Surely I'm a more reliable source than Labour...they lie. I don't.

It's such a shame, because there is so much information, facts and figures I could have put up on the BNP page...but there are too many editors who aren't interested in the page being a resource for those who wish to find out about the party.

If we can't even get something basic such as membership figures right. What's the point?

This isn't going away. I'll have to file a dispute up at the next level...on and on it will go. Only then, when everything is exhausted within wikipedia, then we'll have to look at our legal options.

We are just about to submit new figures to the electoral commission. What then, when the electoral commission still says that we have thousands more members, than a ******* web page that doesn't even exist?

Chrisdbarnett (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your continued incivility isn't making me any more interested in helping, only less. Do you understand that you are driving away the people trying to help you? --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. Fair comment. I'll try again. I'll assume at least, that you'll want to look at this and help me get it all fixed *if* I am right.

Because you would like wikipedia to be a factual and impartial resource.

I originally pointed out that a resource / source page / reference page was unreliable. You agreed that I had a point.

Because that page was unreliable, I requested that it be REVERTED to the original reference which had been good enough for everyone for about 1 year.

So I do apologise for my frustration here - but I honestly can't see where the "confusion" is.

The more recent resource is unreliable - even invalid - because it doesn't actually point to any page which shows any credible research etc. So why can't we revert to any earlier resource?

Chrisdbarnett (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If it is standard to accept self-reporting, then that's what should be used. Let's see what happens. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)