User talk:Chrismaltby

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)

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)

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)