The Surrealist Historian

Mad Cow

With all due respect, I ask you to read WP:N relating to the notability of candidates. Mad Cow does not satisfy agreed policy. Constant altering of the results box will violate the 3RR rule on reverting edits, so please can yhou calm down on this front! doktorb _words^deeds 07:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the potential candidates (other than David Davis), she is the most noteable - a committed political candidate with a proven record. This is an by-election where the OMRLP has been expected to be the main candidate, check the news and look up the words "farce" and "pantomine". Ignoring this shows your lack of neutrality. Your spelling has also gone haywire - "yhou", for example (above) - prehaps you should calm down. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you deal with the issues, not the slight typo in my message. As a long-lost editor, I trust you are aware of notability protocol and procedure. Mad-Cow fails almost all the checks. Given her Sunderland South electoral battle saw her gain less than 1% of the vote, I trust you understand why I cannot see her as being a credible, notable candidate. I also request, with respect, that you do not link parties when the election box does this automatically. doktorb _words^deeds 08:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had an interest in UK politics you would realise that the importance of the OMRLP is not about electorial success, it is about taking part. Without electoral success many of their manifesto items have become law. If you look further than just a cursory glance you will see that she has beaten a BNP candidate at an election. I've provided enough information for you to be able to discover and confirm this for yourself. Please do some research.

As a long-lost editor I do simply do not know the current templates and reckless behaviour in deleting the link of David Davis's main competitor in this by-election caused me to repair the page. As I have maintained your stance is not neutral, she is very important to this by-election, to pretend otherwise is not a tenable position.The Surrealist Historian (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A little more than a glance at my editing history will show I take UK poltiics very seriously (and as a party member, candidate, constituency secretary, and on Wiki long time contributor to political articles, including I may add a draft policy proposal on the notability of political parties, including the MRLP, I trust you realise that your initial assumption is wide of the mark). The "reckless" deletion of the Mad Cow link is simply de-linking an article currently PROD'd, as she is simply not notable under the current guidelines. Candidates are not automatically notable, be they from the MRLP or Petrol Whinge Party. Had we articles for every failed candidate who lost their deposit by some way, we'd have hundreds of thousands of non-notable one-line stubs. I have every will and wish to work with you on this article, but I will have to remind you to stop reverting good-faith edits and to respect notability policies. doktorb _words^deeds 08:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case you still have much to learn. Committed OMRLP parlimentary candidates stand for more elections than parliamentary candiates of other parties. There are about three or four noteable members, who consistently present themselves for elections - they are the noteable ones. The OMRLP, whose acronym you ignorantly mispell, were founded before the Liberal Democrats where reformed. They fill a role that if you should be able to recognise.

Your continued hostility exposes your absence of neutrality. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say for someone who supports the OMRLP, you are rather serious! I am not taking this issue on a party political basis, I am taking this wholly within the context of Wikipedia's notability policies. There are two issues here. Firstly - OMRLP are notable (and if you follow the link to "pp" on my user page, you will be able to see I am framing a notability policy which will embrace parties like the OMRLP who have stood for election without success). Secondly - Mad Cow is not of herself a notable candidate - Lord Sutch, your former leader, was by virtue of his position. Now, I hope we can meet in the middle in this, because I have only wanted this issue to be sorted out rather than banded about in argument. I hope you can see I am being reasonable - I just want what is best for Wiki, and the by-election article. doktorb _words

deeds 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm serious. The role of the OMRLP is to encourage participation in UK elections and to provide sensible suggestions in a satrical manner. They also seek to expose the pompus and highlight the absurd. These are serious matters and as someone who passionately believes in informed, responsible participation in democracy, I feel they are important ones.

For you to flippantly compare them with the Petrol Whinge Party shows just how far you have to travel before you can actually understand them in the light of Wikipedia noteability.

If you are serious about seeking to understand the OMRLP then I'll set you a challenge. Using your current views on noteabilty tell me who you think are the three or four most noteable, living members. You'll need to remember that parliamentary candidates of the OMRLP have no hope of being elected, repeated participation and well-conducted campaigns are the hallmark of exemplars for this *kind* of party. See if you can taste their kind of dogged determination to change the world in a peaceful, democratic but bizarre way.

To be clear, you don't have to do this, but it might help you with your proposal.

I want what is best for the Wiki too, and the by-election article. However it was clear that you were under-informed on this topic. My edits on the by-election page will be focused on the neutrality of the page, which I see others have already been working on. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say you are clearly not understanding me on this (and ironically, I got the term "Petrol Whinge Party" from a message board post from a OMRLP members, John from Croydon, I forget his "alternative" name). I have been interested in politics enough to know about your party's aims (pet passports and all the rest), so I don't need an education on that, with respect. I am not going to suggest notable members or be set a challenge by anyone who has called me "ignorant" amongst other things whilst I have been at my most reasonable (or so I thought). There are rules on Wiki about notability, I set you the challenge to read them doktorb _words^deeds 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read them, so I've completed your challenge already. However you have demonstrated that you are not someone with whom to engage in serious debate or discussion.

You seriously want to lead me to believe that you're *not* ignorant because you read a term from a message board and used it without any futher reference or research? And you boast of it? You summarise the OMRLP's manifesto down to "pet passports", whilst ignoring successful items lke votes for 18-year-olds? You even try to smear me by association.

You demonstrate you have no neutrality regarding the OMRLP. Consider yourself ignored, I will engage in no further direct discussion with you. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we have both strayed from the initial topic of discussion here. I was not challenged to outline each and every policy of your party, mayhaps I should ask you to outline each and every policy of my own party? I note that I have maintained as much civility as possible in this somewhat wayward discussion, but it seems I am now ignored, so will leave it as that. I wish you and your party well. doktorb _words^deeds 09:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for, at least, taking your aggression somewhere else. The Surrealist Historian (talk)