User talk:Wikirectifier


 * }

Shane Stone
I have a number of concerns with your recent edits to Shane Stone and I will detail them at Talk:Shane Stone shortly to allow others to comment. Please comment there yourself. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please address the concerns raised and not just continue to edit the article. All your edits, except one, are to Shane Stone. I am beginning to think that you may have a conflict of interest being close to Shane Stone. Also please learn to add references in the proper manner and then add them for every item you add. If you do not, many of your edits may be reverted. - Bduke   (Discussion)  00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, and thanks for commenting on my talk page. I have been wondering whether you would ever engage with other editors about this article. First the term "snowjob" was used by another editor, but it is appropriate. From your many edits, one would come to the conclusion that Shane Stone has never really been in any controversy. Yet his term as Chief Minister was probably the most controversial of all. I did add something about the statehood referendum, where even his own party, including a former Chief Minister, disagreed with him. I was in Darwin then. The referendum was a shambles and not surprisingly failed. You do not go against a bipartisan report that had taken many years to compile and push something through in a few weeks. There were many other instances when Shane Stone was criticized. What about his involvement in removing preselection from a CLP candidate who was his legal client, when it was reported in the press that he waved around his client's file at the meeting implying there was damaging material in it. The legal community was upset by that, but I do not recall the outcome although he was not barred. The whole article is still of a pro-Shane Stone POV. It is full of puff phrases like "long been recognised as a driving force in laying the foundations for the Northern Territory’s modern day economy". In fact that is probably nonsense, as previous Chief Ministers really laid the foundations. Nevertheless, the article is now much better than when I wrote the above comments. It still needs many of the references to be cleaned up ( add [..] round them to make the reference list hide the URL), it needs more wiki links, it needs more references and it needs cleaning up to remove these puff phrases. Could I also suggest that you use the "preview" button when editing to check your edit before saving it. That cuts down the number of versions for other editors to check your changes. Also use ~ to sign contributions on talk pages. Finally, I do think you should tell us your connection with Shane Stone. You have made 106 edits on wikipedia. Every one is related in some way to Shane Stone. Editors will begin to believe you have a conflict of interest. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and confirmation of your bias - 'snowjob' indeed. We are working on a project about Stone and so have access to all his papers. We first had a look at what was on Wikipedia and were appalled.Our recent edits were undertaken out of interest as to what had been published and what reaction we would draw. Matters you referred to resulted in a successful Appeal to the Supereme Court; the Law Society subsequently dealt with it in a different way and later again the complaint was withdrawn by the complinant. At no timr was Stone 'disbarred' or his practising certificate restricted in any way. It is since been confirmed that certain Labour Lawyers ran the issue and the solicitor enagaged to provide the initial impartial advice to the Law Society went on to be elected a short term ALP member of the Legislative Assembly. Meanwhile you have gone into print making an allegation that is not true -'waved around his clients file'. As for Statehood we have verified that the approach understaken was voted on and fully supported in the CLP Parliamentary Wing - on several ocassions. Hatton was mute - he became brave after the event. We did not attempt to edit the Statehood section as it would be a waste of time. Stone took full responsibility as even a cursory check of hansard will show. More importantly the research understaken by the Parliament (not Stone) blew the myth perpetrated by Hatton with his throw away line about Stonehood. In the research independently commissioned and published by Parliament Stone figured as a minor reason as to why people voted NO. An inconvenient truth to many and appears you had you bothered to check. Of greater concern is that an ABC Lateline program is cited as authoriative in the sense that 'it must be true'. The very same program hosted by closet ALP candidate Maxine McKew. This is High School stuff and hardly passes the rigour of sound research authenticated by reference to primary and secondary sources. The reference to the modern day economy is also incontrovertible as summed up in the NT News Editorial as cited. We also note that you removed the references to 'high water mark' in reference to the NT General Election of 1997. You called it 'peacock words' - thats an interesting description of an accurate description. We stayed mute at the time to try and draw you out on why you think winning seats is an indicator of elecoral success. Seats determine whether you win Government but dont tell the whole story. For example both Paul Keating and John Howard on different occasions won Government with a minority of the vote. A real analysis turns on primary vote and in my recent times when taken together with two party preferred. We have already done the calculations dating from 1980 (first election after Self Government) through to the last. Two party preferred is largely a by product of TV coverage of elections and Antony Greens very entertaining computer on the night. That said the Stone result at that time was a 'high water mark' both in terms of primary vote and 2 party preferred. It was also a crushing victory by any measure. By the by this is what we do for a living; analysis of results. Stone was the most controversial Chief Minister the Territory ever had; some might say Everingham but we think Stone. He clearly got things done and on his own admission Statehood was his greatest failure. The fact that he was the only Chief Minister to ever persuade a Prime Minsiter to allow a referendum is conveniently glossed over including by Mr. Hatton. This is what makes Stone interesting. In any event we wont trouble you further and will remove the article altogether. We now understand why Wikipedia is begging for funds and is discounted by serious researchers as anything other than a gossip mag. As to how someone who is not from the discipline now sitting in Melbourne having lived briefly in Darwin with a conceded bias against Stone is the adjudicator and resident political expert - well what can we say? (Wikirectifier (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC))--Wikirectifier (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Who is "We"?


 * You don't own the article. All past versions are saved and are available for other editors to continue improving the article. For starters I have simply restored the material you deleted (the whole article, for anyone who didn't notice), which obviously includes some contributions from other editors. Be fair. Show good faith. Let time and good sense prevail. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No copyrighted content, please
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted because it apparently was copyrighted content.-- Kubigula (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Leslie Edwin Stone
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Leslie Edwin Stone, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

December 2015
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Leslie Edwin Stone, from its old location at User:Wikirectifier/Leslie Edwin Stone. This is because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Leslie Edwin Stone concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Leslie Edwin Stone, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Leslie Edwin Stone


Hello, Wikirectifier. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Leslie Edwin Stone".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  Puffin  Let's talk! 09:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)