Talk:Bernard Darnton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

This guy is a non-entity. He hardly rates a one liner let alone all this... And his Court case is just a stunt Kiwimw 18:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

He's the leader of a political party, man. And of course its a publicity stunt, thats what politicans DO. What got up your nose? Ppe42 01:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Of a political party that used to get fewer votes than McGillicuddy Serious... and at least there stunts were funny --Limegreen 01:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox Everything on this page (bar the biographical minutiae) is on the Libertarianz page. That page is embarrassingly bad too, but what do you expect? Neil Leslie 06:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. Everything on the page is verifiable fact, and the court case is important enough to warrant publishing in newspapers and magazines, eg the National Business Review. IMHBBO, the page is also NPOV. Please don't simply remove NPOV facts for no apparent reason other than that you personally disagree with the subject of the article. Ppe42 09:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That my cat has four legs is a verifiable fact, but that doesn't mean it rates a mention on Wikipedia. As I'm sure you are aware the text is sourced from a Libertarianz press realease (see [[1]], for example: that was the first place google found the phrase "Darnton is calling for the High Court to make a declaration that this expenditure was illegal." Adding this sort of rubbish to wikipedia makes it a poor a resounce for everyone. Please try to make wikipedia better rather than worse.Neil Leslie 09:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Way too much info was removed. I mean look at it. Biographical details should be restored, election stuff. Indeed all of it. Is there any reason that it was removed? I'm sensing a POV against the libz here... --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 10:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I probably did remove too much (back to your Uni work BTW) *but* chunks of this were verbatim from a libertarians press release. Even a party memebr might concede that the party is not exactly free from a point of view about itself. The same text also appeared on the wikipedia page about the party. The purpose of wikipedia is not to promote political parties. Neil Leslie 19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit by Mr Bluefin no. 65289710

This comment accompanies edit no. 65289710.

• The main section renamed to "Involvement in the Libertarianz party" --just having "Party" made it sound to me like Dalton was a member of "the party"---while it is obvious what party is being talked about, the emphasis on the Liberterianz Party should be removed.
• The reference to his becoming leader was moved down to the Party Involvement section.
• External links. The link to the party homepage removed (irrelevant to anyone wanting to know personal information about him---it can go on the party's article). The link to his profile retained.

Mr Bluefin 23:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bernard-video.jpg

Image:Bernard-video.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)