User talk:Marple123

Australian Greens
Your 5 contributions to WP seem to be attempts to inject links to rabid anti-Green sites into the Australia Greens entry. While the existence of such sites is an undeniable if unfortunate fact, that doesn't make it interesting or relevant by itself. Adding them to the Greens site without any supporting rationale is just a propaganda exercise, and others have every right to reject it. Chrismaltby 10:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I added only one anti-Green website: http://www.greenswatch.com. The second site http://www.stopthegreens.org.au/ was added by a different person (appears not to have an account). I suggest that the links should be left in place until a neutral third party removes them. As an official of the Greens Party you cannot fulfil that role. --Marple123 11:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No - the onus is on contributors to make the content encyclopaedic. A page on Winston Churchill is not enhanced by a link to some loony's ravings about him. It's like citing abusive graffiti on toilet walls as fact. You haven't addressed the question of your own affiliation or biases. Mine are disclosed and others can make the judgement. Chrismaltby 11:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a member of any political party. I voted Liberal in the last election, although I'm leaning towards Labour at the next election. I do have a bias against the Australian Greens because of their ideas (e.g. drugs, the economy and healthcare). How is posting to greens-bloggers encyclopedic? I would suggest that has a high degree of bias (although the link was down when I tried to check).