Talk:New South Wales National Party

Australia: New South Wales / Politics Stub‑class

	Australia portal New South Wales National Party is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Tim? Bruxner

Why do you consistently edit to a 'Tim' Bruxner on: Leader of the New South Wales National Party. There is no evidence of any NSW politician by that name. James Bruxner is correct. He served the NSW Parliament for 19 years and was Deputy Leader from 1975-1981: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/1fb6ebed995667c2ca256ea100825164/9281a10237f1f6d5ca256e2100035768?OpenDocument. Please stop making these pointless and silly edits. Regards Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to you on your talk page, Wikipedia uses common names - the names people actually went by, and Bruxner was known throughout his life as Tim. Do your research, then rant. Rebecca (talk)

May I suggest (and I have made this edit) that the page says "James ("Tim") Bruxner"? You appear to both be right; his name was verifably James Bruxner, and that being his birth name it's the name he will have formally held his offices under. However it's also correct that he's most commonly known as "Tim". The format "James ("Tim") Bruxner" appears to have sufficient clarity for everyone involved, and the longer argument can wait until someone has the time to start a dedicated article on him. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if anyone's really doubting that he was called Tim (at least by friends and party members) the evidence begins here: [1] - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rebeccas has just reverted to the text "James Bruxner" with the edit summary "It's a factual inaccuracy. This can't rationally be disputed if you do any research at all," so I'm going to assume you're both happy with James now and leave it at that. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And no, you would be wrong, as that was in error. This is the stupidest edit war I have seen on Wikipedia in a long time. Either someone doesn't understand Wikipedia:Use common names at all, someone is actually too stupid to use Google, or both. Neither reflects terribly well on their editing. Rebecca (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]