Talk:Tammy Franks
 | This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Greens pages really need to be ralied
editNot sure if you've noticed, but compared with the Family First pollies (Robert Brokenshire and Dennis Hood), the pages for Mark Parnell and Tammy Franks are tiny. This is surprising given the Greens tend to get around 13% of the vote, whereas FFP only get around 5%. There needs to be increased referencing, academic rigor, and content. Twigfan (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Controversy heading
editThe user User:Timeshift9 removed the heading Controversy, stating the reason "we don't use "controversy" as a heading on wikipedia". I've reverted this reversion because I think it's just plain vandalism. The Miley Cyrus article has "controversies" as a header, so it's good enough for me. Also, again with the *rolls eyes*, who is this "we" you're referring to, User:Timeshift9? Haven't you been previously accused of elitism? Twigfan (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- We observe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We don't use "controversy" headings. Your activities are vary curious so i'm going to wait until your account is banned before I start doing rollbacks. I don't have the time or energy for a sock like you. Timeshift (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Like I said on Talk:Robert Brokenshire, you really should adopt WP:AGF and WP:DNB. If you're banking on my account being banned because I'm a "sock" - good luck, because I'm not.
- And, I don't think you answered my question. Who is "we" - and if "we" is Wikipedia editors, why has somebody used it in the Miley Cyrus article? Twigfan (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- And also, I just noticed, the Andrew Forrest article? One questions WP:COI if you are suggesting the title is applicable on some articles, and not on others. Twigfan (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I forgot all about this. I happened to come to the talk page to ask if we can shrink down the tax return failure section down as it takes up a majority of the article as it stands - undue weight. I changed the heading of controversy to tax return failure (best I could think of) as we clearly have a guideline for WP:Controversy sections. They should be avoided. Timeshift (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)