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.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: South Australia / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Tammy Franks is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Greens pages really need to be ralied

Not 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)[reply]

Controversy heading

The 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]