Talk:Easterfest

Killing Artist Red Links
The line in AGMF 2006: contains Naarah (singer) from Alabaster Box

1) Alabaster Box links to a disambiguation page -
 * a) Alabaster Box (band) - which has an artist 'Naarah' - Naarah Seagrott: Vocals - this appears to be the correct link
 * b) An album by CeCe Winans

Deleted the red link to 'Naarah' - as per Wiki cleanup policies and redirected the band links to the correct place.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No personal vendetta just personal corrections
Correcting my citation.

Rai o sunshine (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as an avenue for a personal vendetta against any individual or organisation.
As the organisers of the festival, we understand that there are some real community concerns with the festival being located right in the centre of Toowoomba City. The three major problems are noise, parking and camping facilities.

In the interest of keeping this article factual, we understand that these concerns should be included as part of the factual reality of the event. They shouldn't however be laced throughout the whole article.

Also, it appears several contributors who post their community concerns regarding noise or camping also post regular comments about the festival that are simply not true. For example, the infastructure hired in to set up the festival is mostly sourced from the Toowoomba region where as this article makes regular statements that equipment is mainly sourced from outside the region. It also states that the event 'no longer represents traditional acoustic gospel music'. The event, right from its inception claimed in all advertising material that it showcased almost every style of music. Something that has not changed in its 10 year history.

Sourcing community concerns from local message boards does not form the basis of a balanced article.

We don't dispute that there are community concerns, however, it is unfair for this entire article to be laced with factually wrong comments that seem to be written mostly by a small group of contributors who have these community concerns.

As a not-for-profit community organisation who is staffed mostly with over 1,000 volunteers, we wish to see this article return to a factual account worthy of an encyclopedia.

We would like to see these issues resolved, and our first step is to air our opinion on this discussion page. If things are unable to be resolved through discussions on this page then we will need to take the next step of inviting a moderator to assess the situation.

Easterfest (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally would welcome the page being permanently locked against anon IP edits. Most of the nastiness has come from them - unless it was possibly organiser sockpuppets trying to hide their identity.

It seems from the logs that the Article was first created by editors some of who were later sockpuppeted. Most subsequent additions were by anon IP editors (and most of the added content was unverifiable - I challenged some of it and researched other parts of it - and I believe that I am being personally attacked because of that), some of whom may just have been Festival organisers acting as anon sockpuppets to create a nice advert - actions which might just be in breach of Wiki Policies. The deletions, and edit summaries by anon IPs became increasingly offensive and involved many Personal Attacks ("you are obsessed with this article - work on others" etc - I have been! - this clearly did not display good intent) on me - under Policy, I deleted or reverted any such edits, most especially if done by unverifiable source anon IP editors. Note that editors other than myself reverted some of these anon IP mass 'edit-bombing-runs' vandalisms - even going so far as to put statements on some of the contributing anon IP pages stating that their edits were not considered 'helpful'.

Note also that it may turn out once formal Wiki proceedings start, that many things which have not yet been aired here, may just have to end up in the article in the interests of 'fairness and balance', and that may not necessarily be to the liking of those currently complaining about alleged "negativity". There are comments in the WikiPolicies that those with a vested interest in things such as events reported on here (such as organisers) may not like the way things eventually turn out once they start "getting involved", like just where money really goes - not where it is claimed to go, whether the finances of a "public community volunteer organisation" are really open to public scrutiny, etc, etc, etc.

"In the interest of keeping this article factual, we understand that these concerns should be included as part of the factual reality of the event." This blithely and hypocritically pretends to ignore the documented fact that apparent sockpuppets have been repeatedly attempting to purge these very concerns that the organisers NOW wish to have included! - with increasingly obnoxious edit summary Personal Attacks against me and any others who added such 'unwanted negative' content - is this not demonstrating 'lack of good intent'?

"They shouldn't however be laced throughout the whole article." So where SHOULD they be if they are relevant to any particular part of the article?

"Sourcing community concerns from local message boards does not form the basis of a balanced article." That's just YOUR opinion! I suppose you also want to claim that The Letters To The Editor Page of a Printed Newspaper does not either?! I notr your comment "form the basis" ???!!! There are many positive statement I have researched and added, and polished for better presentation: it seems that this is being denied, and I am accused of ONLY 'being negative' - I have previously experienced in my life the actions of those attempting intimidatory bullying tactics for their own agenda: I am not easily frightened any more.

"this article makes regular statements that equipment is _mainly_ sourced from outside the region" Blatantly Wrong! - I said only SOME! Another nasty misrepresentation intended to smear, and demonstrates "lack of good intent"!

"that seem to be written mostly by a small group of contributors who have these community concerns" - when you ASS-U-ME, you make an ASS out of U & ME! So the organisers wish to just deny and suppress Community Concerns for financial and other reasons (remember that still unverified and unlocatable claim of $6-9 million) of those they believe to be merely an irrelevant few, rather than properly deal with them?

"Wikipedia should not be used as an avenue for a personal vendetta against any individual" - many personal attacks have already been made against me personally (and it is possible that many of these were done by Sockpuppets trying to hide their identity), including false public statements that I have a grudge against the festival because I live there - I do NOT, and NEVER HAVE lived there. I have attempted to delete these, but my attempted deletions of Personal Attacks were reverted! I have not been treated as editing with good intent. It has started to border on defamation, but I will not take that further - I do not have the resources to take on an organisation which publicly claims over 1000 volunteers, and that publicly claims it can wield the power of over $6.9 million ...

FoolesTroupe (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh so NOW it's someone claiming to be an Organiser?

Tell me then, WILL a certain Mr "M" once again be the Grinch manning the complaints line? I know a certain VERY DISTRESSED Muslim student who changed to another University because of Mr "M"s rather crude comments several years ago. So I am not just speaking about my experiences? I understand that last year someone was regularly calling the Mayor regarding unsuitable material over the speaker. This is not just a handful of malcontents. I personally am one who's sick of being abused by Organisers and Visitors alike. A few years ago a visitor illegally parked punched out a local protesting their choice of parking. I called 000 after the screaming then went out to help - and was personally accused of being "Satanic" by those illegally parking.

BELIEVE ME I'm showing restraint.

It's nice to see, as a deafened local, that the issues of the ramped abuse towards those with concerns is being ignored. Same as the issue of drunken teens screaming out bible passages in East Creek at 3am - something I can assure readers does not happen the other 51 weekends a year - is similarly ignored. I personally tried to complain to a certain Council woman who hand waved the comments citing the "Drug and Alcohol Free" claim. Strange how otherwise quiet drunks (trying to slip past booze buses) are suddenly otherwise moved to diclare their chosen spirituality. NOT. We are not stupid. Insulting is NOT the way to acheive mediation.

BELIEVE ME I'm showing restraint.

While on the topic of ignored issues. Has anyone actually looked at the increase of houses put on the market following the Easter period? It's happened for EVERY house sold in my street. Sometimes silence is louder than complaining. I am not the only local who can't afford the luxury to move.

BELIEVE ME I'm showing restraint.

To have my comments dismissed as untrue is completely insulting. Mr "M" has regularly insulted me for many years - sometimes several times each day of the festival - as he had no interest in recording my name (etc) I have no doubt these were completely unrecorded - anywhere except on my phone bill. I have also made repeated complaints to the police and the TCC Emergency After hours number. Usually when my child was distressed - one year the TCC lady could clearly hear the distress. I ask how is a parent to respond when the _then 4 year old_ asks "why Christians hate her" because of something she heard FROM QUEENS PARK?

I also include here the still missing "promised" apologies from several years ago - for the inexcusible distress to my child. The one year she was desperate to make a noice complaint herself.

BELIEVE ME I'm showing restraint.

I have also personally witnessed the "rental" information on the various portaloos and other services. I do not appreciate being accused of lying.

Ahh then we get to the lovely demeaning claim of "Factually wrong". Is it "Factually wrong" that I've had things off the wall once a year? .... No... Is it "Factually wrong" to include comments from others to support my comments? .... No ... I might add that in Academic circles the use of a little concept as "Primary Documentation" is considered suitable research material. THEREFORE sourcing community commentary is suitable under the circumstances. There is nothing stopping you as "Organisers" from joining the list. Maybe you can THEN explain just HOW the sound levels follow "legal requirements" when the year a certain Idle winner drowned out the Buddhist's indoor music in West Street?

If you cut us, do we not bleed? If you hurt us, do we not feel pain? If we cry, do we not shed tears? Let them remember that they are guests in our lands. 

Rai o sunshine (talk)


 * You don't start mediation by insulting and abusing people.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

""Sourcing community concerns from local message boards does not form the basis of a balanced article."" The organisers and apparently some of their 1000 volunteers have insisted this is a "Community", not "Commercial" Event. As I read the Wikipolicies, for "Community Events", the rules on citing are "more relaxed".

I have just been given some really funny legal advice. The AGMF organisers are, of course, acting accordance with the law. But since the Law is demonstratable scientifically wrong - Sound Pressure Level (SPL) is measured on the dB(C) not db(A) scale, it would appear that a suit directly against the State Govt supported by Expert Advisors by affected residents may be most entertaining.

The 'dispute tag' was raised by a 'volunteer or organiser' of the festival: but surely their publicly acknowledge COI should prevent that? :-) FoolesTroupe (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

corrcting some of MY edits
Yeah that was me - and considering what I've experienced I believe I've been VERY restraint.

Rai o sunshine (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PERSONAL ATTACK?? M
Excuse me I've been ONE of many Locals who have a problem. I have had my edits killed - these edits have been based on PRIMARY DOCUMENTATION - being MY PERSOHANL EXPERIENVE. I'm still waiting for the promivced "Personal apology" for leaving my _then_ 7 year old daughter so distressed because the who took her noise complaint (having being insutlted when I'd repeated called to ocmplain the whole weekend). [This was agfter when she was 4 asking why the Xians "HATED HER" because of a bloody preaching that sounded like it was in my living room] ADD to this my Beloved Father in Law died because of that bloody festival. Because my Ex had the audastity to protest at an appropriate forum and a certain Alderman abused his position to humiliate us further.

HOW BLOODY DARE YOU !!! TO say I have NO OPINOIN!!

I can not affort to run away as many locals can each easter.

OK I've jsut signed on becaue my comments habe been constantly deleated.

Rai_o_sunshine

Rai o sunshine (talk)

Wiki Policy SPAM
"Why is this article so based around the neagative aspects of the event, such as concerns, etc. Is it possible to talk about how the event is alot of fun to alot of people."

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign"

"Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place."

"Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required."

For more information, please see Spam.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AGMF Not Sonfest
just letting u know that the agmf is NOT also known as the sonfest!

sonfest is a completely different festival thats held at boonah during the summer holidays. although the sonfest is no more, it has been cancelled but just leting u know.

Don't include artists of 2005
2005 dates are outdated. Take for example Grammy Awards, they do not include all the artists and all the artists shouldn't be included. It is too hefty and many of them are not well known. Rebecca Rowland 05:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Agmf.png
I found Image:Agmf.png and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Agmf.png
Image:Agmf.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizations of matters of fact
I have sufficient training to understand the difference between dB(A) & dB(C). I have personally walked and driven around town with a sound meter, been abused by AGMF representatives, and offered to assist them in making the sound level (which is well above accepted level to cause deafness to patrons on site!) tolerable, and have met personally with the Toowoomba council person in charge of monitoring the sound levels (who has agreed with me), The Toowoomba Mayor, even SMSing her at her home reporting the sound levels to her, written to Politicans, etc.

I quote from the nonsensical gibberish personally written by the Minister for Environment & Multiculturalism:

""suggested that the "A" frequency weighting network as prescribed in the Environmental Protection Regulation 1998 and Queensland Environment Protection Agency - Noise Measurement manual for the measurement and control of environmental noise is inappropriate for measurement of music that is performed in a C scale." "However the "A" weighting network is applied across the entire spectrum of audible frequencies and should not be mistaken as having any relationship to a musical scale.""

I also quote from one of my letters to The Qld Attorney General and Minister for Justice.

"These noise sources expose millions of people to noise pollution that creates not only annoyance, but also significant health consequences such as elevated incidence of hearing loss and cardiovascular disease."

"Annoyance.

Though it pales in comparison to the health effects noted above, noise pollution constitutes a significant factor of annoyance and distraction in modern artificial environments:

1. The meaning listeners attribute to the sound influences annoyance, so that, if listeners dislike the noise content, they are annoyed. What is music to one is noise to another. 2. If the sound causes activity interference, noise is more likely to annoy (for example, sleep disturbance). 3. If listeners feel they can control the noise source, the less likely the noise will be annoying. 4. If listeners believe that the noise is subject to third-party control, including police, but control has failed, they are more annoyed. 5. The inherent unpleasantness of the sound causes annoyance. 6. Contextual sound. If the sound is appropriate for the activity it is in context. If one is at a [motor] race track the noise is in context and the psychological effects are absent. If one is at an outdoor picnic the race track noise will produce adverse psychological and physical effects."

I refer you particularly to numbers 1, 3, 4 & 6.

Number 3 & 4 seems to be very relevant to the AGMF - there have been previous public false claims over the years of 'no noise complaints' - extremely annoying and frustrating false claims when not only have I personally made complaints, but have talked with many others of the public who have also told me that they even had their sanity questioned and told they were the only complainant when they rang up to complain - and that no record seemed to be kept of any of their complaints.

I note that recently, Researchers at University College London analysed responses from a few thousand people. A nagging sense of being unfairly treated at work or at home can raise a person's risk of heart attack; it was reported. People with the strongest feelings of being treated unfairly were 55 percent more likely than those in the moderate [annoyance] category and twice as likely as those in the low category to have serious heart disease, the study found. A buildup of frustration, suppressed anger, humiliation, and other such negative feelings can impact the nervous system, harm the health, impair the efficiency of bodily processes, and damage the heart (and other parts of the body). Stress causes bodily breakdown over a period of time. This is hardly news. It should be noted that the notion of "injustice" causes no impact on the body itself, until its owner gets pissed off. Then you see stress, which in turn impacts bodily function in well-documented ways. Fairness is an important factor in promoting a healthier society, the U.K. team concluded. They published their findings in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

One of the people I have been consulting with internationally has made the following brief comments.

"The problem is that the dB(A) scale discounts low frequencies strongly, so that compared to the dB(C) scale a sound at 200 Hz has to be 12 dB louder on the dB(A) than on the "real sound level" dB(C) scale in order to be considered "obnoxious" under an ordinance that merely states a "decibel level". For a 100 Hz sound to register 35 dB on the dB(A) scale, it has to be at approx 55 dB on the dB(C) scale, which measures actual acoustic power. The "rolloff" in the dB(A) is supposed to accommodate the lessened damage to hearing by lower frequency continuous sounds, but a 50 dB(A) sound at 100 Hz will make the coffee in your cup ripple, and may kill the head on your ale. If it's "rhythmic" it can be incredibly annoying."

Annoying!!!! This particular festival (which serves no alcohol) goes on for several days for many hours each day (and past children's bedtimes) over the Easter Weekend Holiday period.

Inside!!!!! a 100 year old standard sort of Queenslander - wood frame, weather board clad, lined house with corrugated iron roof (unusually also with ceiling insulation!) with all doors and windows shut at several hundred meters distance and shielded by other houses and trees - I have observed objects like VHS cassettes 'dance' on shelves, pictures fall off the nails on the walls, and feelings in my chest of panic attack or heart attack at around 70 dB(C)+ observed -levels were at least 5-15dB(C) higher outside the house - depending on the 'musical' content, and apparently also according to Mr Pidgeon depending on where any particular set (of several at the AGMF) of loudspeakers were aimed - obviously the house fabric (construction materials) is providing some degree of high frequency filtering, but can do very little to affect the very high low frequency sound levels. This obnoxious and highly disturbing level of sound continues unabated (in spite of repeated complaints to all various attempted contacts) for hours at a time for several days.

Simultaneous levels of 90 dB(C)+ and 60 dB(A) were observed under the streetlight after dark next to the Olive 'Peace Tree' in East Creek Park - a few hundred meters away from Queens Park. Similar levels were also recorded at various times over the whole weekend between houses several hundred meters from the source which should have shielded the noise - but because of the massive boost given to bass frequencies, and the massive wattage of amplification used, there was no noticeable attenuation with distance - something that is to be expected with high levels of low and ultra low frequencies. Levels approaching the 90 dB(C) level were also noted at the far south end of East Creek Park - a considerable distance further - no noticeable drop-off in level was noted over that distance, which makes me believe that the topology may also have an amplifying effect. I have also clearly heard the 'music' at The Hospital Casualty Entrance, where I dropped a friend having a panic attack. I have personally heard of reliable reports of the sound "miles away". Thus the concept of "topology external to the emitting site affecting perceived sounds levels" also seriously needs dealing with in the Legislation. The use of dB(C) instead of dB(A) would simplify this too.

When personally measuring the sound levels next to the 'Peace Tree', I also learnt something new as a practicing musician with a long term practical interest in Gospel Music - I hadn't previously realised that "Gospel Music" could now include a rock band (with amplified drum solos!) heard far away at 90 dB(C)+ with a female 'singer' "Orgasming for Christ" in full Janis Joplin style. You just had to be there, really.

As a matter of comparative reference, on the very same site used for this several day long 'music festival', I have personally witnessed a group of a dozen to 20 black powder enthusiasts performing the 'standing', 'advancing', and 'retreating' 3 rank firing drills - nice and noisy close up, but totally unable to be heard any distance off site!

At one stage before calling The Mayor directly on her personal mobile, I measured an amplified lengthy drum solo at over 90 dB(C) several hundred meters off the emitting premises, and in an area shielded by houses and trees. The sound was echoing off the surrounding houses!

Funnily enough though - a local Policeman did claim that I could lodge an "Assault by Noise" criminal charge (people have been found guilty of assault by breathing smoke and spitting!) - and gave explicit details of how to ensure that I would not be turned away before I got to meet the Sergeant in Charge who would have to take my complaint seriously. The Mayor seemed rather nervous when I mentioned this in the face to face meeting, because, the Council being the licensing authority for the 'Noise Permit' that would seem to imply that the Council may be dragged in as an 'accomplice' (or sued by the festival organisation for allowing them to suffer loss!). Great fun for spectators probably, but noting just how much 'mating of elephants' it recently took to get a Queensland Police Officer in charge of someone who died in their custody in goal even put on a charge, I have dim hopes of the Public Prosecutor really taking the case seriously, due to all the local politics doubtless involved. Then there might be even a 'legal precedent', and the whole mess would be more difficult to deal with easily later on. End Quote

FoolesTroupe (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalisations appear to be suspiciously happening on this page largely by anon users or apparent puppets who have not made other useful Wiki contributions. FoolesTroupe (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war Allegations
I have endeavoured to make this article more balanced and factual. Some issues related to this festival are clearly very important to some people. I don't want to initiate an "edit war" or remove factual content, so I thought I'd let you know what changes I have made and why.


 * I removed a sentence about "Fundy Fest" from the introduction. Perhaps it could be placed in the body of the article, but I think it is more of a personal reference rather than a matter of fact. It probably should have a cited source if it's in the article.
 * I removed references to 'long term' as the festival is held over the Easter weekend once a year which is not a particularly long period (though I'm sure it would seem long term with the constant noise from morning to late at night over three consecutive days).
 * I changed a citation to an article on the Toowoomba City Council web site rather than using a source from "Journey Online".
 * I removed some adjectives which did not seem to contribute too much to the factual nature of the content but rather expressed personal opinion.
 * I moved the "Community Concerns" section towards the end of the article. I think this section is certainly justified, but it should not be the primary focus of the article.

Bobgnops (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

An 'Edit War' was started quite some time ago.

The original page seemed to be written by supporters of some artists as 'advertising', some of these contributors were subsequently 'sockpuppeted'. Consideration was given to just having the article marked for deletion, but a decision was made to rescue an entry for an important popular Australian Music Event.

Someone other than me started a "Community Concerns" section - this was repeatedly anon deleted, then moved to the bottom, as 'not being important'. I started the "Community Benefits" section to create balance. The 'alleged financial benefit' is just repeated by many more sources than the 2 cited, but there is no verifiability of the benefit - which meant consideration was given to just deleting such statements. Unfortunately the Wiki policy on "Advertising" clearly states that an entry should not consist primarily of advertising the artist list or promoting the event - I based my rewrite of this article on the similarly successful large Woodford Festival page - this page openly mentions the 'negative' past Community Concerns.

I note here that the phrase 'more fanatical supporters of the Festival' has been removed from the article, but I am concerned by the refusal of certain new editors to accept any alleged (in their opinion!) 'negative comments' - Wiki is not about 'advertising or promoting, or even just talking about a fun thing'.

I also remind others that another Wiki Policy involves not maliciously implying bad faith on other editors - this is also called a personal attack.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed more anon IP vandalism - this may be a sockpuppet attack.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

More relevant WikiPolicy: "If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content ... Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. ... Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about."

FoolesTroupe (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

More anon vandalism reverted, with some asistance from another, thanks! FoolesTroupe (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Policy - Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY
QUOTE: Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY ; "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc." UNQUOTE

This raises the serious question whether upcoming artists for each year should really be listed at all in this article about a privately owned (Organisers claim it is a Non-profit) business that generates a lot of revenue. FoolesTroupe (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Modification FoolesTroupe (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki policy - Advertisements masquerading as articles
As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LINKSPAM, this whole page was originally written as just a giant unbalanced glowing ('best band in the whole world', etc) advert for the Festival - which is AFAIK a privately owned for profit business.

I have researched the history of the event locally and added readily available concerns conveyed to me by others, as well as from my own personal experiences. FoolesTroupe (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the original article was created by supporters of some of the bands appearing - some of these editors were later sockpuppeted.

"Is it possible to talk about how the event is alot of fun to alot of people."

Suppressing just the negativity is not balance. I am annoyed about the implied personal attacks om myself. FoolesTroupe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content" FoolesTroupe (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Negativity
Why is this article so based around the neagative aspects of the event, such as concerns, etc. Is it possible to talk about how the event is alot of fun to alot of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skam127 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to write a 'balanced' article about Hitler & the Nazis!!! FoolesTroupe (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While the event obviously has some draw backs they are hardly the Nazis and you can call Jesus many things but I don't think Hitler is very fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skam127 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"you can call Jesus many things but I don't think Hitler is very fair" Now you are close to starting a religious war - as you apparently don't understand "Rhetorical Irony". FoolesTroupe (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats to Foolestroupe
For improving this article out of site with the recent aditionsSkam127 (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean "out of sight" - I'm a pedantic speller! :-) FoolesTroupe (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And I can't spell for shit Skam127 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Commencing the first step towards dispute resolution
This page has been heavily edited by a local resident who wishes for the festival to relocate outside the city of Toowoomba. As such the entire tenure of this article is laced with negative personal comments and assumptions. In addition many, of these comments are completely inaccurate and subjective by nature.

Easterfest is attended by tens of thousand of local and visitors and as such should have an article on wikipedia, however, it should be far more balanced and broad ranging than the current dominance by one contributor's personal negative viewpoint.

According to the article's history page, the same individual contributor routinely deletes all editing that he does not agree with. We as the organisers of the festival understand that a festival of this size will cause some negative issues and community concerns. These concerns should be included on this page so long as they are sourced from a credible media source and not just the views of an individual or a small number of the community.

We trust that the editing of this page will become more balanced, less biased and factually credible.

We do not consider it our role as the organisers of the event to edit our own article, but we do respectfully ask that those who do edit our article do not use wikipedia as an avenue for their personal vendetta against the event. ---

"This page has been heavily edited by a local resident who wishes for the festival to relocate outside the city of Toowoomba."

Above unsigned comments claimed to be by the Festival organisers - clearly reflect COI - I also consider this to be a a personal attack (I will not mention defamation)! and the anonymous commenter obviously is mistaken as I don't even live in Toowoomba!!! I absolutely DO NOT WISH IT TO BE RELOCATED either!!!

FoolesTroupe (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just adding to Foolestroups comments. I only formalised my membership because of the vandalism to my enteries. I know i am not the only casual contributor here. OH dare I say it - this MUST be one of those ""laced with negative personal comments and assumptions" because the bits you protest are not ONE contributor's personal negative viewpoint. JUST BECAUE PEOPLE disgree doe not give people the right to belitle those who disagree - including suggesting it is ONE. Just reading the letters to the Editor ought to confirm the level of disquiet (to say the least)

I have no problem with the festival remaining there IF it followed the same restrictions plaved on ALL other festivals in the park. I've lived here for 25 Years - I've seen MANY festivals and honestly the "Youth festivals" are better behaved than your mob.

IF you INSIST on abusing the locals the MANY ways you have, I challange you to take it to the Show (THE WHOLE FESTIVAL NOT THE "FAMILY CAMPING" stunt you pulled) and see how long wealthier locals will put up wiht it. Not a handful of Pensiners & other low SES

As I have already stated, I have shown considerable restraint - AND find it interesting HOW easy is it for the "So called Organisers" to discredit many people's issues as "A local resident". As ONE OF MANY local residents who have a problem with Fundy Fest. The Common use of the name ought to indicate how frustrated MANY locals are to the complete disregard the Organisers have for the locals. I know people who clearly hear the fetival on the opposite side of the Hospital. ONLY Fundemntalists believe tha this level of abuse is acceptible given the "noble cause".

I laugh with the "laced with negative personal comments and assumptions" claim as I am not only complainer who received abuse "laced with negative personal comments and assumptions" from the Abusive Git (plural??) manning the complaints phone the last 10 years. INCLUDING the abuse my daughter received when she as desperate - having been unable to sleep for 3 nights she wanted to nap Sunday afternoon

"In addition many, of these comments are completely inaccurate and subjective by nature." My experiences are not inaccurate & subjective. I can easily produce my phone bills to show how many times I alone called. I ask just how innaccurate & subjective can that be?

EXCUSE ME?? Foolstroups has also edited (correct gramma etc) MY enteries. WOOPS another "completely inaccurate and subjective by nature." AFAIC he's tried to keep a balance.

IF you are the Organisers - and not another "sockpupet" I'd welcome a door-to-door survey in the Burstow-Mary Streets area. and let you see just how "more balanced, less biased and factually credible" your information is

My motivation is not "their personal vendetta against the event" I want people to know the truth. One family has been publicly humilated, a man is dead, just how low are you guys prepared to go?

Rai o sunshine (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what the hell is going on in this article?
For the record, I used to live in Toowoomba years ago. I no longer do, I have never attended EasterFest or anything of its ilk in Toowoomba, and I have no connection to anybody writing this article - either for or against.

Having said that, this article is absolute rubbish. It's full of unsourced, badly-written POV statements about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand, and is full of spelling and grammatical errors. This is a dictionary, not a vendetta, nor a place for free advertising. The article as it stands is clearly biased against the event, and focuses more on criticising organiser's choices and twaddling on about the noise levels than it does on describing the actual event the article is about. Concerns are fair enough, and if there is SOURCED contention about a local event, a SHORT section on that is warranted.

Whoever is continually edit-warring over this piece of tripe, heads up - I'll be coming through here with my massive red pen on January 25th, one week from now. Clean up this biased waste of space, or I'll do it for you. Lenky (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me?? Are you threatening people here? I'm sorry as I've already said I've lived UNDER 100meters from Queens Park. I can prove my statements with letters, emails, phone bills, Front Page stories and ... oh yeah Death Notices. I have shown restraint. The Husband of a Fundy Fest "Organiser" admitted that the Organisers re-classified "Complaints" so they could maintain lie that there had been no "complaints". Just as people here claiming to be "Organisers" insist there is one person making the negative comments. No threat. Just the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth.

Rai o sunshine (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am not threatening you. I stated very clearly that if this poorly-written article isn't cleaned up, I will clean it up. Statement, not threat. I repeat: if there are actual reviewable sources for your complaints, there's no reason why a section on that in the article is not warranted. However, the sources you cite above (letters, emails, and phone bills) are not notable, nor accessible on the internet. If you have "Front Page" (side note - what's with the Random Capitalisation of Every second Word?) stories from a reputable news organisation, link them. No matter what your personal experiences, no matter how much documentation you may personally have, unless you can link to it from a reputable online source, it is not suitable for inclusion here, and therefore your claims cannot be made. I repeat again - I have no connection to either side of this debate. I don't care about your twaddle with the "Organisers". I don't know who you're referring to. What I care about is that this article is written - throughout - with a clear bias, unsourced claims, and repeated snide comments, such as this one: "how promised events for 2008 of Snowboarding, Kids Island, and past attractions such as Rodeo Events, and past carnival sideshows contribute to 'the true message of Easter' (spreading the Joy of God and celebrating Him) the organisers have not stated." I repeat - AGAIN - very slowly so that nobody misunderstands me: I. Do. Not. Care. About. Your. Feud. I care only that this article is atrociously written, biased, and poorly sourced. As I would change any other article I came across with those problems, I don't see why this one should be any different. Lenky (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 *  Strange Lenky, If those words were used on your I'd bet you'd be up on your "High Horse". If you dont want to be inolved * WHY * ARE * YOU * HERE *? Is this some form of trolling or are you some sad individual who have nothing to do eith their time than to take credit for someone else's work or just vandalise other's POV's by removing citations (while declairing comments to be uncredited) and make false accusations about other's motivations? IF you have had nothign to do with the Festival you will have no idea tha there was a Rodeo (in a very small arena) one year that the RSPCA was taking a very serious look at. So JUST how can you dis-credit claims for somehting by your own admittion you have no interest in and have no idea about? PRIMARY DOCUMENTATION is NOT ORIGIONAL RESEARCH. They are the facts in which origional reserach might arise. There is a big difference. FWIW I am RE-EDITING my citations. In this forum, it is esesntual one is able to disprove claims they are soem crazed lone loonie. AND for Social Sciences this is an acceptible form of documentation - or are you claiming that Wikki is above University standards of documentation? Just like to repeat - removing my newspaper citation (then complaining about lack of citation) is at it's best poor form - at it's worse childish. Rai o sunshine (talk)


 * Firstly, go and check the history of the article. I have edited nothing here. Adhoc is the user who deleted the poorly-sourced content - which, you may note, consisted of three-fourths of the entire article. Secondly, I do not "vandalise other's POVs". Know why? This is an encyclopaedia - your POV has no place here. Well-written, properly sourced, non-biased articles do. This article is none of those three things. That is why I have taken an interest, and for no other reason. If you care to look at my contributions, I have taken an interest in several articles that I have no personal stake in, merely because they are badly written. This does not make me a troll, it makes me a person interested in balance and correct grammar. Yes, it is essential in this forum that you prove you are not some lone loony (although I'm starting to think that you and Foolestroupe are a) the same person and b) the guy who lives in that house next to Queens Park that used to have 'PIGS' written all over the front of it and cars buried upright in the back yard), because Wikipedia is a forum that can be - and is - muchly abused by said lone loonies. I can discredit your claims, because there are rules in place to decide what and what does not constitute acceptable sources. To break it down for you: your phone bill is not a reputable source. Your letters to the council are not reputable sources. The death certificate of your family member, for which I am sorry, is not a reputable source. Your Yahoo group messages, composed mostly by yourself, are likewise not reputable sources. You may not agree with me, but the rules of Wikipedia do.  Lenky (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How insulting. OK I found it http://www.thechronicle.com.au/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=localnews&storyid=3616198 I'll acecpt your apology now. OR do I have to find the old man's online death notice (As you'll not accept yahoo list's)? Guessing the Courier Mail'll keep them - CVA 3 days after a week working here (in front of this 7 year old grandaughter in a shopping center) & died 25/12. The origional article was 3 weeks after Cr Shelton had a screaming match at a public meeting. The followups (NOT recorded on the paper) made it clear that the comments were in bad taste at it's best. As for the Foolstroup claim. I do not pretend to have his experience in the many things I've seen him comment on. Rai o sunshine (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What's insulting? Do you mean the post above where you called me trollish, childish, a sad individual and accused me of deleting content that I didn't touch? Yeah, it was a bit. I'll accept YOUR apology now. And on-topic - you cannot link the death of the man in the article to the AGMF. There is simply no credible evidence for its inclusion in this article. I know you don't like that fact, but frankly, that's too bad. Seriously - if you hate the festival that much, make some picket signs or something. You simply cannot use this article as a place to make accusations that can't be proven. And before you say anything, I don't need to see the death notice, and nor does anyone else. Unless it has a coroner's report stating DEATH BY FESTIVAL, it's not relevant here. Lenky (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know - you remind me of a horid little toerag bully that got expelled from my school years ago. Tell me did you ever trap kids in the toilets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.177.84 (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Send in the Clowns! Oh No --- Its... The Rouge Admins!!! Well now the Mods have come in, we can be sure to end up with | The Wrong Version!!!! never mind - I've called for | help! FoolesTroupe (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm neither an admin, nor "Rouge", thank you. If pressed, I would say I'm slate-grey. Lenky (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a fish, smells like a fish.....


 * Classy. Lenky (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Community concerns section
I've added a disputed tag to the community concerns section, which is very negative and poorly sourced. Could editors who believe this section shouldn't be deleted please explain why. Otherwise, I'll delete the section in the next few days. Addhoc (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Oh more threats? As I have said I'm not the only one who wonders just how the Festival can ignore the restrictions placed on EVERY other event in Queens Park over the last 25 years I've lived next to it? What more doyou want? Scanned copies of my phone bills each Easter to prove I was one of many complaints.

BTW Ditto on the disputed tag only on the Community "Benifits" claim. Public humilitation of anyone protesting? One death?

Just what happened to the investigation of the claims of the so called influx of money to Toowoomba. Anyone wanna guess what has been consitantly the worst week every year for one of the most more expensive Resturants in town?

Rai o sunshine (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Rai o sunshine, have a look at the No original research and Verifiability policies. Unless references are added to the community concerns section that substantiate the content, the section is going to be removed. These references cannot be yahoo groups, or scanned telephone bills, but instead should be, for example, newspaper, or magazine articles. Addhoc (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bias here is horrifying. The confusion between "origional research" and "Primary Documentation" really is difficult to understand when dealing with intelligent persons. As I said before I cannot see how the "Outgoing Correspondance" of the Toowomba City Council is NOT considered acceptible as a Primary Documentent, while a Newspaper reporting on the Fundy Fest's (unsubstantial) claims of financial benifit is.

There are serious flaws here

Rai o sunshine (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any reasoanble person with any formal education would be stupid enough to suggest primary documentation was origional research. I know my history Tutors would be spinning in their graves at such a notion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.177.84 (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Content removal
I've removed the content that lacked reliable sources. If editors want to reintroduce this material, please supply a source in accordance with the verifiability and no original research policies. Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have again re-challenged this content "The Toowoomba City Council estimated the festival's 2005 contribution to to the local economy at $6.9 million" from the url which I remember clearly Harvardising - Certain local concillors have "notable" COI as public supporters of the event - an attempt was made by previous editors to claim that a leading local University Academic (who may have COI with the festival) had produced an unverified, non-peer reviewed, unpublished 'report' claiming this mythical figure - that claim was previously also deleted as unverifiable. Even if a newspaper publishes a statement that Fred Nurk was abducted by aliens and given an alien probe - the abduction and A/P is still unverifiable. :-)

I'll still abide by the result of mediation - irrespective of any personal feelings/knowledge.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally wondering why some of this advertising ("proved" by biased ciatation - within the organisation) is considered acecptible when something sited from the Toowoomba CIty Council Outgoing COrrespondance was not considered suitible citation.

Rai o sunshine (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not enthused about the $6.9 million figure either. If that was an estimate before the event, then ok, but it isn't relevant now. The relevant figure is of course what the actual figure was. I'll remove the sentence. Addhoc (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the 'Artists' Section with a Primary Sources tag - just to be consistent with so many other 'event articles' sourced from 'organisers claims' I have perused here. Apparently if the Artists (and their appearance at any particular event) are not "notable" enough to get mentioned by anybody OTHER than the organisers, then that data should be struck from Wiki! :-)

Truly, it IS a very nice thing to 'always assume good faith', but ... well, attempts have ALREADY been made to discredit me... even confusing me with SOMEONE (now, after some searching, _I_ have located the relevant newspaper articles (as well as a lot of articles validating many now purged claims...), but there seems little point in inserting the validated entries now) ELSE against whom the organisers have claimed here to already have a long standing local dispute! :-)

I dare say that a large number of the editors are young enough to even be my grandchildren, so I've been around for a long time. I grew up when legal drinking age in Queensland was 21, so I know 'a few tricks'... :-) Thus I won't insert into the article now the laughable easily verifiable fact (maps are easily available on the web!) that this 'alcohol free event' is located within a few minutes walk of several (of many) licensed hotels in the CBD area, which it is right next to ... :-)

Firstly the claimed figure of 90,000 population is not directly validated, but we can gloss over that for the moment... the camping - well - you have to already have a festival ticket to camp.... :-) so the 'campers' (with poor facilities as well as OTHER problems which have NOT been - on the grounds of 'fairness and balance' mentioned - which the editor 'Easterfest' already started off this Request for Moderation by stating!) should really NOT be counted more than once, should they?!... oh, and having followed links to bands that HAVE played there in the past, I noticed that some of THEM thought they were only playing to crowds of a couple of thousand... but that's not really all that relevant or important I suppose... :-)

OK - some hard facts and a little obvious logic - if you go to the TCC site already used to 'validate' certain claims (such as the alleged millions of dollars local benefit nonsense - lemme see - $7 million divided by alleged '20,000 ticket sales'... even accounting for 'multiplier effects' you'd HAVE to be RICH to attend...) and search for AGMF you will find (among several articles) an article that clearly states that the TCCouncil officials have determined that 'the water usage drops noticeably during Easter'. This was also published in the Chronicle to allay strong public fears during the (still ongoing} long term severe water restrictions that the constantly alleged 'swelling of town population by 50%'!!! was not resulting in massive water increased usage (well it WOULD be a public worry, wouldn't it!) but a DECREASE in water usage of 13.5 MegaLitres LOWER than the average total in the 4 weeks prior to the festival. :-) Some local cynics say that many people leave town because of the noise - but THAT may well be considered 'not Wiki validatable'... :-)

You can't get in the gate without a ticket!

The alleged figure of '45,000' is ORIGINALLY from an 'organiser press release' (Primary Source closely linked to the event!) that conflates alleged 'aggregate ticket sales of 20,000' - including season tickets and daily attendance sales and an 'estimate (by organisers!) of another 25,000 attending free events in town (for which tickets are not needed)'. Now misleadingly, this total figure of 45,000 ASS-U-MEs (if the 'swelling by 50%' is REALLY valid! - and ignoring the fact that large numbers of citizens leave town!) that NOBODY LOCAL attends!

Funny THAT, when it is ALSO claimed that large numbers of locals attend (including the published organiser claims that many local Churches cancel their regular Easter Sunday Morning Services and incorporate them into the Sunday Morning Church Service Event)!!! :-)

You can't have it BOTH WAYS at the same time! Not and have any veracity anyway! :-) Oh - Wiki is of course not officially really interested in veracity (because that is damn near impossible for editors who have no contact with the local realities to deal with!), only validity (by quoting only references made in OTHER 'reliable' sources)... Well such ridiculously conflicting claims (whether in 'reliable sources' or not) put together don't have any logical validity either! :-)

And you may well wonder why some locals want the whole noisy arrogant mess to just go away! :-)

Now I'm going back to working on the Chapter 'Manipulating Wikis for Fun & Profit' of my forthcoming book 'Controlling Weapons of Mass Media'. :-) I's ONLY Wiki anyway...


 * -P

FoolesTroupe (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC) (Sorry - not logged in before!)


 * Wow. You talk a lot. And in circles. But that's neither here nor there. If Addhoc feels a TCC publication is not a reputable source, then I'll abide by that. See how I manage to do that - have something I put in taken away and NOT chuck a shitfit? It's easier than it looks, dude. Try it for yourself! Lenky (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed unvalidated claim of '50% increase'. Ignored uncivil remarks. FoolesTroupe (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed material failing 'reliable sources' and 'no original research' - i.e. personal blog, and unvalidated claim. 203.206.1.240 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected - obviusly this person's education is superior to many University Professors. I dont think so. Primary Documentation is the building blocks of any form of reserach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.177.84 (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding content
Just reinstated festival's informal nickname as "Christian Big Day Out", as referenced by the Sydney Morning Herald and The Courier Mail. Reputable sources, both of them. Lenky (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly, as Media Watch has often demonstrated, just because a newspaper prints a press release, does not 'validate or verify' it - and the bigger the newspaper - the less checking they do of 'entertainment & community' events. There have already been 2 examples of this in this article for this organiser. FoolesTroupe (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you'll forgive me for taking the word of Australia's oldest continuously-published paper over yours, FoolesTroupe. Have a nice day! Lenky (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see FoolsTroups has not lowered himself to Lenky's level. I just so want to tell Mr L to Grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.177.84 (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

first AGMF?
$$[[Media:Insert formula here]]$$

um i dont know if anyone has raised this issue previously, but i believe the first agmf was held in 1998, not 1999. 2008 is its 10th anniversary. im not currently a member and i dont know how any of this works, but could someone fix that up and possibly ad more information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.178.233 (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I suspect it's just like all the other handwaving & other stage tricks to draw one's attention away from unwanted facts. Some locals think the origional was a concert elsewhere.

I've lived within ground shaking distance from the Fundy fest speakers for over a decade before it decended onto us unwilling locals. This might seem trivial to some, but as local _PRIMARY DOCUMENTATION_... We were trying to work the dates a while ago. My daughter was moved to a bed in 2000. ONE of several reasons was (at the time) the Police responding to noice complaints used to enter a house to hear how loud something was inside the home (her room was seen from the hall). This was a direct responce to the horific noise the previous year - when we had the drunken teens screaming bible passages in a nearby park (across the road from the Festival).

So yeah I suspect the First time it was in the park in a form similar to it is now was 1999. BUT I'm betting there'll be suggestions that there was SOMETHING the previous year that wasn't in the park. Who knows it might have actually invovled unamplificated Gospel Music - that was lost farily into the history of the event.

Rai o sunshine (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a single 'launch' concert in 1998 at the Empire Theatre that featured James Morrison and two local performers. In 1999 (the first festival), the festival was held in many locations throughout the city including Rumours, USQ and some of Toowoomba's Churches. There was one event held in Queen's Park for 4 hours called 'Music in the Park' on Easter Sunday afternoon. There was a variety of music at all these events including Rock, Hip Hop, Jazz, Country and more. The following year (2000) was much the same format. It wasn't until 2001 that the festival was first held almost entirely in Queen's Park with camping on site.

Easterfest (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The user Easterfest, as the organiser, of course has COI. Verifiable links needed, of course FoolesTroupe (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)