User talk:Schloog

Davenport state by-election, 2015
Thanks for your email. Firstly, I would suggest you read WP:COI. In a nutshell, "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships". Second, "local resident" or not, is not relevant. We wouldn't list this for every candidate. Third, businessman is fine, but I couldn't locate this anywhere on his Facebook page. It's only a temporary reference anyway that will be removed once Antony puts him on his page and gives a description, and we'll extrapolate our description from that. Fourth, may I suggest following what his page says... "Information on candidates can be sent to elections@your.abc.net.au". Timeshift (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for the info. 'Local resident' is actually one of our main points, as the Greens candidate is not a local (lives in St Marys), Sam Duluk has stood for other electorates previously (not sure where he lives), and being local has been a major point at every meeting we have had with the Davenport community. Noted re Antony's updates and temporary nature. I've sent him info last night per his page. Yep, the facebook page isn't quite complete yet. We will shortly be launching our website www.thedavenportal.com.au, which will have a lot more detail on it for use as reference. Thankyou for your time. I'm available for any more info if you need it down the track. Always good to see people actively taking interest in the political arena. Now, back to building the website, editing the video, writing speeches and responding to various social media! Volunteering is time-consuming :) Schloog (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It may be one of your main points, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's one of wikipedia's main points. We won't be using 'thedavenportal' as a reference - it is not a WP:RS and is inherently biased. Antony's link once updated will be the only ref used for candidate descriptions. Timeshift (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Based on the comment re Martin Hamilton-Smith running his own candidates in Fisher and Davenport (which he doesn't seem to be doing in practice - had meeting with him on Friday), can I assume that if info is published in a newspaper, it can then be used as a reference? A reference that could be used for Stephen's business background can be found in the candidate information at http://www.abc.net.au/news/sa-election-2014/guide/dave/, which is Antony approved :)Schloog (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link, i'll do some tinkering now. But once Antony updates his by-election article, we'll use that. Timeshift (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks againSchloog (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts - did you know that it used to be much more common for candidates to contest seats they didn't live in, and that having a "local" represent the seat is only a new fashion? St Marys is in neighbouring Waite and right on the border of Davenport. Considering how often and how much boundaries change for SA state elections, how hard and onerous would it be to continue to reside in the same seat? Have a look on page 19 here and see what Davenport looked like in 1989. To me it just sounds like Thomas is just upset that he wasn't preselected so this is his revenge - to split the Green vote and harm their chances and increase the likelyhood of a Liberal retain, even if this isn't how he sees it. I'm sure i'm not far from the truth. Timeshift (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Warning: rant ahead! Wouldn't be a Greens member would you? Local representation is actually the intention of our system since Federation, and parties were not originally part of it at all! The truth is that Stephen (and a number of others) resigned from the party because of corrupting personal agendas from within (the local branch included SH-Y, Mark Parnell, and Penny Wright - who is using this by-election as a way of raising her profile for 2016). Jody Moate has no idea about issues relevant to Davenport and looked like a 'stunned mullet' (not my description) at a recent MTC session in Blackwood for council - the local knowledge just isn't there. She's been selected as a puppet for Penny to use as a campaign tool as she's pliant and good at waving flags. I actually have video evidence of Penny trying to make Stephen look bad to the party (she knew he wasn't a puppet) Those members with a personal interest in Davenport saw that the party was ignoring the electorate in favour of a personal agenda. And anyone in Davenport knows that being local is important - Evans made a point of it, and it has been expressed often publicly, even by Liberal members who thought that him becoming Treasurer post-March would take away from his time for the local community- of course, that didn't happen, and another four years in opposition just isn't worth it for him. Jody's husband and campaign manager, Simon Hope, had one of the worst results for the Greens in March because he refused to listen to others. The three other candidates from the Boothby branch all got healthy swings towards them, while Simon in Waite went backwards by over 2%. The other reason for people leaving is that the party has actually breached the law by using illegally-obtained photographs as part of the recent council campaign. When we pointed this out, Penny threatened us with a lawsuit! No way to treat people in your own party when you've been caught with your hand in the cookie-jar. We're not concerned as we have physical documentation proving the breaking of the law and abuse of artist rights for political gain. We could have been their greatest allies but won't stand by while they arrogantly break the law against South Australians (and a Davenportian in this instance). If they applied their public standards internally, they'd be in a lot better position. The party is currently split nationally between the single-minded tree-hugging fundamentalists (Milne etc) and the modern wholistic progressives (which Stephen is). See how Milne absolutely refuses to negotiate on any position? See also how the Greens can't even achieve small victories because of this they don't want to be seen as working with others, despite that being in their interest politically. It's almost 50-50, with a lot of the newer members who have joined for social justice reasons instead of lying down in front of trees being progressive. The conservative fundies are currently in charge, but it'll change - the progressives are seeing through the rhetoric. The Greens are on the verge of being prosecuted for illegal activity (could be within the next week) and it is the fundamentalists who have put them in this position. They can act outraged, but that just shows disrespect for the law of the land and those who expect ethical behaviour from those in public office - this is two Federal Senators angry they've been caught being unethical (and actually in breach of the UNHRC). Not a good look for a party that demands ethics from everyone else! A far more mature approach would be to admit the mistake, apologise to the artist adn move on like adults, but no.... We support many Greens aims but not internal corruption and personal agendas over proper and ethical representation of the people, as is the true intention of our system. Independence is rapidly gaining popularity as people become disillusioned with party mechanics - the intelligent Green voters will see this; they don't want illegal activity and abuse of the system perpetuated in their name. Currently the Greens are better as an activist group than a political party, and even there, they get out done by GetUp, SumofUs, etc If their contempt for South Aussies and the law means they suffer in the upcoming by-election, it's of their own making. You can follow @Stephen4Dav and @bunyipjake on Twitter to stay abreast of the situation. Rant over - stepping away from computer :) Schloog (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Touched a nerve I see! I'm a Greens voter but that's about it (more of the progressive flavour than the environmentalist flavour). I've never been a member of any political party. It's a pity to see what appears to be bitter internal infighting. Making it public just turns you in to the Democrats. Enjoy that. Timeshift (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's why we've walked away - It was disingenuous to stay a part of a party that was so conflicted and unable to find direction. It's a time of growth for them, and can be turned into a positive if they so choose, but its a little like too much like high school politics for us. Organisationally, it literally takes six months to get anything through the branch system, and noone wants to take responsibility for leadership for fear of standing out. On the legal side, being a party doesn't give you the right to break the law and when they took the opposite attitude, we said no thanks. We put the community and people first. If people view having ethics and putting people before party agendas as mean-spirited there's not much we can do about it. They'll try to defame us for standing up for the abused, but we can live with that - the truth will out, and it won't play well with discerning voters. If it was SA Lib or Labor breaking the law and stealing from South Australians, it'd be a huge issue with public outrage. Just because they're Green doesn't mean they have an automatic ethical superiority or better organisational skills - if they did, they'd be a more powerful force in politics. There comes a time when you have to say 'this far, no further'. Always question your leaders, for they are human too. We regularly question Stephen to make sure we're aligned on issues. No point being a sheeple - it just invalidates the strength of personal opinion, and it's always individuals coming from a minority view that change the world. I mean, really, why should I have to explain that breaking the law is not a good thing to do, to a Federal Senator who is the Greens Justice portfolio holder? Or explain to SH-Y that standing up for local compliance with the Human Rights Act is just as important as standing up for those of refugees? Sure, one doesn't get you as much celebrity exposure, but it isn't the role of politicians to be celebrities - or to take the easy and convenient path. They are public servants - we expect them to serve the public, not the other way around.Schloog (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So what happened to his candidacy? Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)