User talk:Wardens

Regarding your edits to Climate Change Coalition:
Your recent edit to Climate Change Coalition (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a non-talk page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 01:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Climate Change Coalition, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Climate Change Coalition was changed by Wardens (c) (t) making a minor change adding "!!!" on 2007-11-11T03:00:26+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot 03:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view a problem
Wardens, Wikipedia is not a political billboard. Some of the stuff about CCC candidates is encyclopaedic, but stuff advocating a vote for the party or putting a more positive spin on the past is clearly not. It will keep getting reverted as long as you write from a partisan point of view. Chrismaltby 07:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Problem is Chrismaltby, you have changed the CCC site to further enhance the political view of the Greens. I had every right to delete your "greens" references due to the fact that they were not "encyclopaedic" about the CCC Party and infact misrepresented the truth. My first edits where from a non-partisan frame of view, but you keep changing our information, so it is clear that your agenda is to keep changing our information regardless of content to favour the Greens.

You appear to be engaging in edit warring.

You wrote in your original edits "In early November 2007 the party issued voting tickets for above the line voting in the Senate in several states. These revealed that the party's preferences will be allocated to anti-environmental and global warming denying candidates in front of environmentalist parties such as The Greens"  This clearly shows that you are presenting biased view on a site that is not related to the Greens Party.

I have since written a response to why the Party made it's preferential deals and I think that it justifies why it made those deals. This paragraph that you have placed on the CCC site in the past, is clearly partisan towards the Greens.

I will now adjust the CCC site to remove any statements that may be considered to be partisan. I trust that you find these changes acceptable.

MORE ON THE CHANGES YOU KEEP MAKING..... Hi Look I’m not trying to yank your chain, but at the moment I’m trying to concentrate on stopping a major electrical company in our city from ripping apart our state forest. I don’t want to keep having to divert my time for this. As I have already explained, I don’t feel that referencing the Greens on the CCC page is justified, as the CCC has not gone and done the same to the Greens site.

Once again, in the spirit of arbitration, I have left the main information you have put on the page intact, but have removed the references to the Greens and the Fishing Party which quite rightly should not be featured on this page. If you continue to add in these references, then I will stand by the CCC’s assertion that The Greens deserve their place in the CCC’s referencing decisions, due to The Greens referencing Labor second in the Lower House. If you want I can release a press release so that it can become an encyclopaedia fact as well. Our position on Labor is the same as the ACF, in that they are rated poorly in terms of climate change and then some could argue anti-environmental.

Now please, for the sake of trying to protect the only biodiverse forest like it in the world, lets just get on with helping to stop climate change.


 * You're missing the point. The references to the Greens and the Fishing party are necessary to explain the issue, which has received attention whether the CCC thinks it to be important or otherwise. I do think you are coming to a better understanding of the Wikipedia medium, and I applaud that. Regarding my supposed bias, I won't shrink from it, but at least I am prepared to be open about it. Some people can't see past the label and refuse to engage with the issues. And good luck with the campaign. Chrismaltby 10:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I think that maybe you are missed my earlier point too. There are plenty of criticisms leveled at the Greens party that we could if we wanted to (in the context of "attention whether the Greens thinks its to be important or otherwise) that we too could engage in - on the Greens site.  I think to be fair that, maybe you too are not seeing past the label.  Wikipedia is not about engaging the issues, rather it is a form of encyclopedic knowledge.  You first wrote to me, identifying that very fact, and I would ask you in the spirit of this wonderful medium to honor that, before this becomes anymore of a tedious process that largely serves no purpose. PS - I think I've gotten that rotten electrical company on the run - score 1 for the environment.

December 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Please discuss these matters on the article talk page so a consensus can be reached. Xdenizen 05:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

January 2008
The election is over. The results are in. The writs have been returned. There are no candidates any more, only former candidates. To keep saying that person X "is" the candidate for the WA senate is just wrong. But that's just a quibble - the real issue is that you don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is all about. Chrismaltby (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Chris, I was unaware I had written "is the candidate". I have checked my edits, but can't find the reference to "is" for the WA Candidate.  I did find it in reference to Patrice Newell and have made the changes as you so rightly pointed out.  Considering the edit is under the title "2007 Australian Federal Election" I can't imagine why this minor quibble would stress you, but I would hate for you to feel any more stress than you have to.  As for my ability at understanding the Wikipedia medium, haven't we already discussed this previously.  I guess I can only refer you back to our previous talk on this subject. Wardens sometime, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but people other than me have made the same criticism but you still don't seem to change your behaviour. Our previous "discussions" are just circular. Still, maybe with Xdenizen's help and with the adrenaline of election campaigning behind us all for another few years you might get there... Chrismaltby (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sign your edits on Talk pages, and other things :)
Wardens, when you post comments on talk pages, you should follow them with four tildes ~ which will automagically sign and date your posts.

For what it's worth I think you've exercised an enormous amount of good faith in this debate and editing process. :) Best regards, Xdenizen (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks once again for your good guidance Xdenizen :) Wardens (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)