User talk:Chrismaltby/Archive 2

Freda Yetta Brown

I think it is important to emphasise that she remained a lifelong communist even after leaving the CPA. Be wary of trusting either Brown or her daughter when it comes to their years in the CPA or general associations with Australian communism and where possible, don't fall for "If it's not in the authorised biography, then it didn't happen!". Paul Austin (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any axe to grind in relation to anyone's involvement in the Communist Party. The point is whether to emphasise it so that the thrust of the article becomes an implied criticism of the person for that involvement. If you stick to the facts (which can be referenced) and use a neutral tone, a reader can make their own conclusions. The article makes her lifelong political views plain without additional labouring of the point in my opinion. Chrismaltby (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous peoples

Regarding your recent edit to Green party, please refer to my comments on the article's talk page. Thanks. --Rebroad (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rhiannon

Hello Chris, I note you recent edits to the Lee Rhiannon page. I believe you have a serious conflict of intrest in this matter. All the claims made of Ms Rhiannon's page are cited and linked. They have been added ion accordance with WP:BLP You cannot just remove statements you believe are unfavourable to a member of the same political party as you. Thanks, Timbracks13 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I at least put my background in my user page unlike some. The reliability of The Australian as a reference in relation to matters concerning the Australian Greens is deeply in question and the consensus of WP is that it should not be relied on - especially for material which has any form of editorial content. The content I edited is intended to overemphasise aspects of Ms Rhiannon's past or which contains editorial additions to matters on the public record. This content is either from published sources biased against the Greens or from WP contributors with their own political agendas. Chrismaltby (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Edit War?

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lee Rhiannon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, the Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states that:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.Tiggerjay (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take the warning, but you should be flagging the other participants as well - see the discussion in Talk:Lee Rhiannon. I have attempted to remain constructive in spite of a fair amount of personal abuse from people who choose the conceal their bias behind pseudonyms. Chrismaltby (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my replay to your first comment over on my talk page. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: your comments about another editor at the Lee Rhiannon talk page... please read the WP policy WP:OUTING. Are you trying to get teh other editor sacked in real life, or what? --Surturz (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. My intention was to put on the record that his claims about my supposed bias were not themselves unbiased. His mistake to link his possible workplace to his WP activities was his alone; I know well enough that such things happen all too often in the online world and it's reasonable to cut some slack for that. The fact that WP allows people to be anonymous if they choose is indeed one of the strengths of the project, but the protection of identity comes with a matching responsibility to not attack those like myself who are prepared to edit as myself and reveal their real-life affiliations. Chrismaltby (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and again

Two things:

Stop using combative edit summaries in your talkpage contributions, It's not helping the discussion at all. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors.
Don't link people's IP addresses to their accounts where they have not done so voluntarily, especially in the way you have done on the talkpage. I understand you may not be aware of the policy, but this is considered outing. -- Lear's Fool 01:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for any breach of the outing rule in relation to Mr Toad and for any upset it may have caused. I can't help but ponder on old adage about residents of glass houses and stones though. Bad puns are always regrettable, but they are hard to resist. Chrismaltby (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once more

Sorry to bring this discussion up again, but I have to ask you to cease the McCarthyism allusions. It's not helping you or anyone else, and it doesn't make your arguments any stronger. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool 04:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I was trying to articulate a test for inclusion of the specific content on the page, not describe other contributors as taking a McCarthyist approach. "If the continued questioning ... is significant then it should be mentioned here. If it's just lazy McCarthyist attack then it should not." I further qualified that by noting that I have a personal view on this question. I have a thick enough skin to cope with the personal attacks, and I endeavour to stick to the issues myself (who's perfect). Happy to be corrected when appropriate. Chrismaltby (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]