User talk:Curleighandmowe

Re Moyes - I would highly suggest not to start a pointless edit war based on your POV and vandalism - it won't get you anywhere. Timeshift (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshift9, there's no rational reason for the changes you have made. All you have done is remove factual information so I can only assume the intent is a personally motivated one / vandalism. As far as Upper House seats go, please avail yourself of the function and operation of NSW Governance.

Your cites do not show what you claim. And based on the fact i've been here three years and contributed tens of thousands of edits, and the fact that you're new and have only editted Moyes and Nile - there's only one of us here with a personal motivation. Timeshift (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What cites do not show claims? These are facts I've endeavoured to substantiate with cites, the only POV in evidence is the arbitrary deletion of material.Curleighandmowe (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your cite showed that Moyes received offers from three parties. That's about the extent of what the cite covers. Timeshift (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that was the only cite you have a problem with? So if that was your only problem, then how do you justify the removal of the information, much of which was not even related to your alledged concerns?

Re: the Offers cite, I merely provided the source of Moyes claim with is just a claim my friend. I was merely posting factual information but doing so in a manner as to avoid inferring fact upon one persons POV / claim. If I claimed to be the re-incarnation of Ghandi and media repeat that claim, does that merit qualification as fact? Moyes made a claim. Apparently it is common knowledge in the NSW Parliament that the claim is fictious. I myself, out of curiousity phoned the various parties to try and confirm Moyes claims and on each occasion received an adamant no. I welcome you to do the same. Even so, if this remains personally contencious for you, the article should be amended, it doesn't provide justifiation to remove any information you wish.Curleighandmowe (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps once you've been here for a while, you'll realise why your demands do not need to be met. Your claims need to be verifiable. We do not ring people to confirm or disprove allegiations. We rely on WP:RS. I'll continue to monitor the page to make sure you do not violate various wikipedia guidelines. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per above. Your edits are POV pushing and you know it. I'm not the one with the axe to grind, you are. Timeshift (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Gordon Moyes, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Orderinchaos 00:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my points from a little over 3 months ago - POV pushing on Wikipedia is utterly unacceptable, especially on biographies of living people. Consider this a warning that if you persist in trying to prosecute a case against Gordon Moyes on his Wikipedia page, you're likely to get blocked. Orderinchaos 03:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I reiterate my point that I am merely posting facts supported with cites. What case am I trying to prosecute? If I have erred, please show exactly what I have done wrong / violated the rules on biographies of living people, and I'll amend my writing. All I can think here is that there is some rule I'm unaware of that prohibits NPOV material that could be viewed by some in a negative light? curleighandmowe 04:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in theory, if you fill an article with cited criticisms, you think that's acceptable? Is that where you and wikipedia guidelines don't meet eye to eye...? Timeshift (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]