User talk:Astroboy55

Wikipedia is not the place to promote personal websites. If you can't make an edit without the self-promotion and promotion of your agenda, then don't do it at all. Refer WP:NPOV. --Falcadore (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not promoting personal web sites. Merely stating facts. Inquiries have indeed been ordered and crowd numbers severely down on previous years, or are you disputing this? Also providing information about the residents' campaign to have the event stopped or moved. Also well documented in the media. If you have any evidence that contradicts what I'm saying, let's hear it Astroboy55 (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also an on-line petition at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/say-no-to-the-supergp.html which will be added to the already existing petitions and presented to the Queensland Government in 2010. - That very specifically is spam advertising. That goes. Also, it's not that I dispute any of your facts, but you have not provided any references or sources that they are facts. It is not up to me to dispute, but up to you to prove.
 * By way of assistance I point you towards: this link here, for methods on how to correctly reference and cite sources.
 * Unlike what you may have heard, or been told, Wikipedia is not a free-for-all. Thank you. --Falcadore (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction re referencing sources. BTW, I do not think that Wikipedia is a free for all, but I also do not think that censorship was part of the Wiki spirit.Astroboy55 (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with censorship, it's just wikipedia does categorically advertise other websites. I've made some further edits - it's still advertising in part. You use other internet pages as reference to specific points, not general - "hey look at this page, it has stuff", like you had written. Also you haven't quite got the hang of the referencing - you are not the author for one, the newspaper/website journalist is. --Falcadore (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It also occurs to me that you have actually written this on the wrong page. 2009 Nikon SuperGP is specifically about the 2009 event, rather than the Gold Coast motor race, perhaps it is better suited to appear on Surfers Paradise Street Circuit. --Falcadore (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the referencing. Sorry bout that - I'm a total newbie if you haven't been able to tell by now, but learning fast and enjoying the process. Do not agree with you on where this belongs. It was the catastrophic failure of the 2009 event that created all the controversy and resulted in so many people wanting the event scrapped or moved, so it definitely belongs here. I too made an edit in the first paragraph as there was no c;ear reference to where the event was actually held. It simply said "Australia" - that is a far too vague in my view. Overall, I find the article lacking in details as it only really deals with the V8 Supercars round and does not mention any of the support categories etc.. Astroboy55 (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Details about the Indycar race are at Nikon Indy 300. Support races are not sufficiently notable for coverage.
 * While the details about the races collapse is 2009 specific, details about the repurcussions are not, hence the suggestion to move the details to a more broadly focussed page. --Falcadore (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree on both points. The name of the article is "2009 Nikon SuperGP" and as such it should detail everything about the event, including support categories and other events such as the no-show by the A1GP (which you have included). There should be and now is a paragraph about the low crowd numbers and the controversy caused by the event collapse etc.. The name of the article suggests that it is about the actual event - not just the V8s. Perhaps I can suggest that you move the details re round 11 of the V8 supercars to a more V8 focussed page... Your original paragraphs incorrectly seem to suggest that the SuperGP is only about the V8s.Astroboy55 (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In 2009, effectively, it was. This article would have been specifically about A1 Grand Prix portion of the event, had they showed up. It was the 2009 version of 2008 Nikon Indy 300. --Falcadore (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

supergpsucks as a reference
I've had a look at the supergpsucks website and I'm finding some disturbing inaccuracies on this page, which makes consider whether or not this website can be considered a relaible source. In particular I find some of the data in the crown numbers section to be wildly innaccurate to the point of willing perpetuating falsehoods.

To explain: I note the entry for 2009 crowd figures in motorsports is listed at just a shade over 310,000 people, claiming Australia Stadiums website as a source. Upon investigation I note the 2009 crowd figures for motorsport at Australia Stadiums are made up of the crowd figures of just two events, the Nikon SuperGP and the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix. There were well over 100 motorsport events held around Australia in 2009, that 310,000 crowd figure could be easily doubled by including just the Australian Formula One Grand Prix and the Clipsal 500. There is no mention of 13 of the 14 V8 Supercar events. No mentions of events from the following international series, Formula One World Championship, World Superbike Championship, World Rally Championship, Asia-Pacific Rally Championship, the Red Bull Air Race or any of the dozens of domestic series encompassing Circuit Racing, Drag Racing, Rallying, Speedway or Hillclimbing.

This Australian Beureau of Statistics report tabled in 2007 states that in the 12 month sample period which occurred from during 2005-06 that 1.48 million people attended motorsport events in Australia, a disparity of over 450%.

It leaves me disquited about the accuracy of this site in general. --Falcadore (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. I will endeavor to alert the web master or owner about this and have them check their figures (totals) - however I believe that the crowd numbers for the SuperGP are still absolutely accurate and as I have not specifically referenced the crowd numbers from the site, there is no reason for you to delete or edit my entry. The reference goes to the actual residents' petition.Astroboy55 (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Couple of points - Wikipedia is open source - there is no ownership, but that's incredible minor. The link to the online petition is really tenuous and still borderline advertising. And were you the author of that reference? If so, please no self-promotion. --Falcadore (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As to the residents petition - I have a concern because of this: Link=spam guideline. --Falcadore (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read through the Wiki article you provided a link to and found nothing that would apply to my reference to the on-line petition. It is not an article masquerading as an advertisement. I am not promoting a product or a web site. I'm simply providing a link that verifies that the on-line petition is real and explains what it is exactly, so as far as a reference goes, it is kosher. If I was mentioning the on-line petition without providing a link to verify it, you would most likely edit or delete my contribution anyway.Astroboy55 (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence of the existance of a on-line petition does not advance the article in any way. The article is not about the petition, it's about the motor race event. The article does not lose anything by way of quality without the link. Those that are sufficiently interested in the topic will find the petition by themselves. --Falcadore (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it a break. The article is about the 2009 SuperGP and since the event was such an unparalleled fiasco, one of the direct results were the two inquiries as well as the strong reaction of the residents and petitioners, so the mention of the petition is definitely warranted as it is a direct result of the failed event. And since it is mentioned, there needs to be a verification which it now has. You're claiming that the mention of the on-line petition will not advance the article in any way. You are wrong as it clearly contributes to describing the fallout of the bungled event. You're also claiming that "the article would not lose anything by the way of quality without the link". Again, I strongly disagree and I'd like to make a claim of my own; That the article would not lose anything by the way of quality without the paragraph about the V8 Supercar challenge. I have already pointed out that the event was about so much more than just the Supercars, which I still intend to add to article BTW. In fact, the Supercar Challenge information is totally superfluous as that particular part of the SuperGP is more than adequately covered at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_V8_Supercar_Challenge which you yourself have been contributing to and even featured a link to on the 2009 SuperGP srticle. I feel that the paragraph about the V8 Supercar Challenge on the Nikon SuperGP article could be replaced with single link to the other, much more detailed feature on the V8 Supercar Challenge. Wouldn't you agree? I have already pointed out that the article is about the SuperGP rather than just the V8 supercars and you agreed explaining that "it was supposed to be specifically about the A1GP had they shown up".... Well, they clearly didn't, so you obviously must have decided to make it about the V8s instead - even though you would have been aware that there already exists a much better and more detailed article on the Round 11 V8 Supercar Challenge.Astroboy55 (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is the link to the petition so important? --Falcadore (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem hellbent on trying to bury the fallout of this event and while I understand that as an avid racing fan, it hurts when something involving motor sports goes this wrong, it nonetheless happened and I see absolutely no reason to try to "sweep it under the carpet". If there was a petition to save the event, I would find it equally important to mention this and provide a link to it as a reference as it is extremely relevant to this specific event and the consequences resulting from it. In my view, not mentioning and referencing the dissatisfaction of the public and the petition is like doing an article on the Vietnam War without mentioning the strong dislike people had for the war and the lengths they went to trying to stop it. (In saying this, I'm in no way actually comparing the Vietnam War to the SuperGP - merely pointing out that just because something happens to be extremely unpopular, there is no reason to hide facts, including any fallout.Astroboy55 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the character analysis, and the incorrect assumptions made, and in point of fact, not answering the question, but I ask again, why is the link to the petition so important to the article? --Falcadore (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already answered your question and explained that the link is imprtant as verification as it takes the reader to the petition itself where they can read the actual text of the petition and thereby understand the reasons for it. Can we move on now please?Astroboy55 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The points that need verification are the points that are debatable. The existance of petitions is not really an argueable point. My concern here is Wikipedia being used as a method of linking another website to a wider audience where such a link does not advance the narrative in anyway. Otherwise I'm completely fine with the modifications, and you'd have to admit yourself it's an improvement over the original article addition. If you remove the link, does the story suffer at all? Basically, just want the advertsing content removed, to insulate Wikipedia from the implication that it is promoting the petition. --Falcadore (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready to move on I see... Okay, neither am I so let's keep dancing. I feel strongly about the importance of the link for reasons already stated and it stays as far as I'm concerned. If nothing else, it provides a verifiable source to material proving how unpopular the event has become and since the article is a about the 2009 Super GP it is extremely relevant to the article as are a number of other details and facts I will be adding over the next week or two. I can not understand how you can keep arguing that it would not be relevant and how it doesn't contribute to the article at all. And I disagree with your statement that the existence of petitions is not really an arguable point. How else can this be verified other than with a link to the actual petition. Otherwise, it would simply be an unsupported statement. The link is not promoting a product or service, simply proving that people are so unhappy with the event that they are prepared to sign a petition to have it terminated or moved.Astroboy55 (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * it provides a verifiable source to material proving how unpopular the event has become Then connect those points directly, do not use a third party site. SuperGPsucks did not generate any of those points themselves.
 * It's not about letting go, its about removing advertising not permitted. Said that many times too.
 * It seems to me that the ammendments to this article are entirely about sneaking something no permitted into wikipedia. --Falcadore (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what can I say except that I totally disagree with you...again. I have justified my reasoning over and over to you and my arguments are valid. I can not help how it seems to you or how you are feeling about it on a personal level. I have not violated any of the Wiki guidelines and the link to a petition is not advertising in any shape or form. No one is encouraged to sign anything. The link is merely there to verify that there is a movement not happy with the SuperGP. Nothing sinister about this whatsoever and definitely no advertising going on here.Astroboy55 (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Again with the NPOV
Come on, could you at least attempt to write neutrally? --Falcadore (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you too. Quite a predictable reaction from my favourite pen pal.... However, I'm not quite done yet mate.Astroboy55 (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)