User talk:Chrismaltby/Archive 1

Thanks for your contributions to the 2004 Australian Greens candidates article

Chris, thanks for your contributions to this article. It is now nearly complete with information for all AG candidates. Peter C Talk! 20:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (moved from Chrismaltby (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

FF

"The claim is supported by minimal detail while other Family First policy positions appear to be contradictory." is nothing more than your own little slice of commentary and opinion slipped into the article. Commentary belongs on a blog, not Wikipedia. The difference between "can" and "being" made with regards to the board is vague; you cannot imply that the board makes decisions without respect for the wishes of membership (which is what it reads like).

Given you've described yourself as the "secretary of the Waverley Greens", I would be a lot more careful when it comes to editing articles like these. You would not want to bring bad press for playing with the articles of your opponents. michael ^talk 12:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - the operation of companies is well known. The day-to-day decision making for any organisation is typically done by some sort of executive - in FF's case, it's a company board. I don't profess to know the advantages of incorporation as a company rather than under society incorporation laws - perhaps you could enlighten us.

The "environmentalist" claim is entirely unsupported or referenced. The policy itself makes no such claim. I believe I understand what the word "environmentalist" means - and the victorian policies certainly aren't environmentalist.

The possibility of "bad press" sounds more like a threat than a rebuttal.Chrismaltby 13:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "The claim is supported by minimal detail while other Family First policy positions appear to contradict it." needs to be outright removed. It is a joke, your opinion: "minimal detail", "appear to contradict". The term "environmentalist" is not restricted to any party, or group, and the text should note it a self-label and explain their environment policy, not include opinion on its extent. Regards the board, it wasn't any dispute as to the fact they use any sort of board, it was that the text implies that the board carries out its function without regards to the wishes of membership.

These are legitimate qualms and need to be corrected. michael ^talk 13:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I please receive a reply. I would like this resolved. michael ^talk 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the 'environmentalist' claim is at best self supported - but it was in the original article in an even more misleading way. I'm happy to see the claim removed if it can't be substantiated. As for the operation of the board, I can't see how you read those words to imply that the membership is ignored. It just says the board makes the day-to-day decisions as you would expect a board to do. If there is some special mechanism for the board to be accountable to the membership then that would be worthy of mention perhaps. Chrismaltby 01:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Reference

Hi Chris: I noticed that you recently deleted a reference under Further Reading for the bio article on Senator Bob Brown. I was wondering if there was any reason for this? Incidentally, you may have provided this reason elsewhere, and if so, my apologies for not having thus far located it. User: JDAKINS.

I don't think it really belongs on a page about Bob Brown - although that article mentions him, it's more about the Greens as a party than about the position of one member (albeit the parliamentary leader). In other words it's not really "further reading" about Brown... As for whether it adds sufficient value to the Greens page - I'll see how others respond. My feeling is that it's all a bit of a beat up - you show me any principle and I'll show you a contradiction. For example, should Greens use coal fired electricity to use their computers, which are made in environmentally damaging factories in low wage countries? The world is always some shade of grey - the question is the balance and the relative shading of the political alternatives. Chrismaltby (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC) (moved from Chrismaltby (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

Hi Chris: Thanks for that. You're right - I think it is good to have discussion about whether the article in Australian Quarterly ought to be included in the Further Reading list. To this end, I thought it might be useful for me to provide some further more detailed information on the article itself:

1. Content of the Article. The Australian Quarterly article refers to 5 historical episodes, of which 3 involve Senator Brown. Of the 26 references in the article, 9 are to speeches, writings or media releases from Senator Brown. Thus the article really does focus quite a deal on Senator Brown, and indeed there are more references to Senator Brown than to any other person in the article. Does the article reveal any additional information about Senator Brown? Well my challenge would be to point out another publication (article or book) which deals with the same material that this article does.

Incidentally, the book by William Lines in the Further Reading contains material on other individuals as well as Senator Brown. So I don't think there is any real necessity that items in the Further Reading list should deal exclusively with Senator Brown.

2. Reliability of the Publication. I think it is important that this is an academic article, with the apparatus of scholarly research, that is, verifiable references to both primary and secondary source material. Moreover it is published in Australian Quarterly, the oldest established political science journal in Australia, and a journal which is included in university libraries throughout Australia and indeed in many parts of the world. As a researched article in a respected political science journal, dealing at least substantially with Senator Brown, I think it is at least worthy of attention.

On the basis of the above I would recommend that it be retained within the Further Reading list.

Regards, User:JDAKINS 1 February, 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 11:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising that the parliamentary leader of the Greens would have been the person to address these issues most visibly, but I presume that the author of the AQ article doesn't suggest that Senator Brown is somehow at odds with the party as a result. This concern would seem to be with a perceived difference between principles espoused by the Greens and statements made by Greens MPs in their capacity as party spokespeople. In other words, the article doesn't really increase understanding of Senator Brown as an individual or in his various roles in the party. In support of that I note that you didn't add any text to the page to support its particular relevance to Senator Brown. I might be inclined to suggest that the real reason for adding it is to publicise a claim of hypocrisy against the Greens generally in the hope of scoring cheap political points, which is hardly what Wikipedia is for. Chrismaltby (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris: I disagree. 1) Sorry, but contrary to what you assert, the article does in fact give specific information about the political career of Senator Brown. For instance, the article gives information about the call by Brown in 1991 for military intervention in Iraq. I am not aware of any other scholarly source where this is discussed - if so, please enlighten me. 2) I do take your point that I have not added to the text - although I would point out that none of the other sources in the Further Reading have specific links to text. However, your suggestion is a good one, and I will attempt to draft some text in the next week or so. For those reading this discussion, the article is: Page, J.S. 2007. 'The Problem of the Pro-War Greens'. AQ: Australian Quarterly, 79(4): 23-25, 40; available on-line at <http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00008590/> (link to Abstract) and <http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00008590/01/8590.pdf> (link to Article), and readers other than Chris and I are welcome to comment. Kind regards, JDAKINS 6 February, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDAKINS (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While James Page is entitled to express his view about "pro-war Greens", I think there is a question of putting more weight on the matter than one person's narrowly based views might warrant. A read of the article shows that Page is scarcely neutral toward the Greens - I found his claim that the "insult" to George W Bush in parliament was the reason for further delay in the release of Habib and Hick from Guantanamo Bay quite bizarre (and certainly unsupported by either coherent argument or references). Those who care to search for information about the Greens commitment to peace can use Google to find the Page article, not WP. Chrismaltby (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Objected to adding of an 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). --Marple123 12:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an interest in Wikipedia being a useful source of information. Linking to sites which are the equivalent of anonymous toilet wall grafitti doesn't advance that interest. All contributors to Wikipedia are subject to their own personal bias - unlike most, I am frank about my political links and am prepared to contribute under my own name and not a pseudonym. This invariably attracts claims of conflict of interest from the clueless. Chrismaltby 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Greenswatch.com is a most informative website filled with claims that you may not like, but are still grounded in fact. You objecting to such a website is not just the pot calling the kettle black, but the pot calling the Klan black, as you engage in the exact slander against the Family First Party as you claim is done to you. Phanatical 12:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this comment shows just how irrational you are Mr Phanatical. In relation to Family First there is a legitimate issue of links with the AoG. The question is not whether the links exist, but the extent to which they define the party itself. Either way, there is scope for debate and the referencing of reliable sources who can provide guidance. For you to confuse the contents of the Greens hate sites you refer to with anything remotely reliable and the so-called debate relating to their linkage to the entry on the Australian Greens with any reasonable process says a lot. I wish you a long and happy career in Family First. Chrismaltby 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in - speaking as a Wikipedia admin, a reasonable barometer to use is reliable sources and external links. The two sites provided appear to fail both, just as any similar site criticising the Family First party would also be in violation. Orderinchaos 00:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. These guys have a pretty tenuous grip on reality, let alone good Wiki citizenship. Chrismaltby 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My point was that this is the boy calling wolf, the Bali Bombers asking for clemency from the death penalty, Scientologists calling anybody else crazy. As far as I'm concern, Chris Maltby forfeitted his right to whinge about negative contributions to the Greens page when he began to fill the Family First page with exactly that sort of nonsense. Phanatical 18:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is mentioning FF's AoG connections "nonsense"? You've lost the plot Phanatical... Chrismaltby 00:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Redistribution

Hi. RE: Your edits to Division of Wentworth. Wasn't the redistribution in 2006? Frickeg 04:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It started in 2005 and (I guess) finished in 2006. Take your pick of the date. Chrismaltby 06:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Climate Change Coalition POV

Hey Chris! Thanks for those reverts. I was going to do it myself, but I thought I might tag it first and signal my intentions before being bold. Should the tag stay up until User:Wardens gets the hint? Xdenizen 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be taking a while to get the hint... may as well leave the tag till he (or someone) comes up with neutral wording as well as content that adds value to Wikipedia. Chrismaltby 07:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You're being very patient with him, well done. For this reason I've not advanced the idea of asking for Administrator help. If the matter can be resolved peaceably, all the better. Regards, Xdenizen (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2004 Australian Greens candidates

An article that you have been involved in editing, 2004 Australian Greens candidates, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Australian Greens candidates. Thank you. Frickeg (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bogus

Well yeah, it is a bit. But you've gotta admit that the article is much better than when we started out. Do you have a problem with me shitcanning the NPOV tag? Xdenizen (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, go ahead. Or at least wait till Wardens digests the changes I just made. Chrismaltby (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Secretary of a Greens branch?

Do you have any power to get the Greens to release public domain images of their Senators? Timeshift (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No. But I could ask. I take it that the problem is that there is no explicit statement (eg creative commons) on the various Greens websites. What is the status of the official photos on the parliament website? Chrismaltby (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright with fair-use provisions. Wikipedia will not accept copyrighted photos of people regardless of fair-use. Mark Vaile did his through OTRS (a process i'm not familiar with myself)... that is one option, another is to add a public domain notice (different to creative commons) to the images on the Greens site (the first political party (in Australia) to do so, what a great idea for the Greens who promote free exchange of information...), or if the Greens don't already have a flickr account, they could create one, upload the images to that and add the creative commons license...

On the flipside however, I have managed to source (unofficial) free photos as can be seen, with the only one remaining without a photo being Ludlam... official photos would be nice however, especially in the case of Siewert as the current photo isn't the best... Timeshift (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, i'm adding infoboxes and hoping for consistency for the 6 Greens Senators (outgoing, current, and incoming), however i'm missing Siewert's place of birth, and Ludlams date and place of birth. Could you help out here too? Timeshift (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Greens party article

Hi Chris, regarding that greens party article, I do agree with the point you made, I'd been trying to downsize/correct the paragraphs in question. I'd been trying to start a bit of debate on the article's discussion page to get a bit of consensus on it because the author had been adding the information into loads of other Greens related articles, and I felt was giving the issue unfair weight. In my experience in editing sourced material on wikipedia, doing it as a group works best. If the author doesn't contest the wholesale removal of the paragraphs, well and good. =) --rakkar (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's good to seek consensus, but perhaps I just wasn't as hopeful as you. I was surprised that the addition didn't stir up more discussion though - I waited to see if anyone else would bite, and to find the time myself to read the source and look for any citable response to appear. Maybe AQ is not such an influential journal as it may appear from the title... Chrismaltby (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)