Freebird15

Welcome!

Hello, Freebird15, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Rich Farmbrough, 03:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

Gillard and BLP

Thanks for your input into Wikipedia. Seriously, you've got a mix of regular editors of all political views pretty much uniformly opposed to your proposed additions. That's not because we are all trying to protect Gillard from any smear or innuendo, but because the way Wikipedia works is that we don't report negative information about a real person unless we have a good source. Gillard may have been intimately caught up in some union scandal, but we have no evidence to say that this is the case. Nobody was charged, Gillard denied any involvement, and we really can do no more than guess as to why she left her legal firm. She resigned, she terminated the relationship, she said later that she was young and naïve. I'm inclined to believe her unless someone comes forward to make a definitive statement to the contrary, but that's just my opinion.

Regardless, we aren't going to report this sort of material. This goes for anybody who is the subject of a Wikipedia biographical article.

If you want to work on something where there is more meat on the bones and some excellent sources, then Craig Thomson affair, since renamed to Health Services Union expenses affair, is way short of what it needs to be.

And finally, can I get you to be more polite and considerate of other editors? You can think all you want about others, but don't say it. In fact, nine times out of ten, you'll be wrong and just look silly. Better to assume everybody else is working in good faith for the betterment of the encyclopaedia. Take a look at the welcome message above. It's got some good advice in it. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

COI suspicisions

Hi Freebird15! To be honest, I don't really mind the various insinuations that I have a COI, in spite of my denial, as I find it amusing. However, there really isn't anything to it - so while they do no harm, you're not going to get the milage you expect. It's probably best if we just focus on improving the articles rather than focusing on each other, as it tends to distract from what we're here to do. - Bilby (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby: you know you could, if you wanted to, easily dispel the "amusing" conflict-of-interest accusation by explaining why all your edits of the following topics improved the subject's public image:

• Sophie Mirabella
• Quentin Bryce
• Julia Gillard directly or though the related AWU scandal

... or explain why you are so devoted to these people that your spend so much effort carefully improving their images?

Freebird15 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I really don't see much cause to explain any of my edits. :) But my edits on those topics were mostly to bring them in line with BLP policy, or to develop the article as part of a colaborative effort. You are aware that Sophie Mirabella is a Liberal politician, aren't you? - Bilby (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)