User talk:AussieJess

Welcome
Hello AussieJess, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Where to ask a question, try the Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up!

--Golden Wattle talk 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gary Nairn
You removed text from the quote which was in the transcript - it was the introductory and closing remarks by the journalist around Phelp's interjections at the meeting and in my opinion they give context. I believe they are properly included as the reference is to the radio program. Further you altered the words to read "Mr Nairn did not agree with his staffer's sentiment and Dr Phelps later withdrew his comment towards Mr Kelly" However, the reference cited does not support your version. If you wish to amend the article to include this version please cite a reliable source to substantiate the text - this is required under the wikipedia policy of Verifiability. --Golden Wattle talk 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I removed the commentator's text and left the transcipt of the conversation between the two parties involved. Hardly NPOV with the last line being someone's opinion of the altercation! If someone wants context then they can click on the link and read the entire thing.

How about Hansard, does a flat out denial from Mr Nairn agreeing with the comments made in that official record count? Or is it just the Herald Sun? Should I be avoiding tabloid style newspapers as sources? =) --AussieJess talk


 * You need to cite the source - and you have - I don't have to find it. Please review the project's policies including Verifiability  noting The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.  You have provided a source that is fine but you need to understand that without that source I am entitled toremove it.  I fail to understand your reference to the Herald Sun above - what is your point?  Further - as I have already stated I reinstated the word "heckled" having listened to Dr Phelp's coontributions to the meeting.  The commentator's opinion is a journalist included int he footnote - not my opinion or any other editor's opinion - it is properly included in the footnote to give context around the quotation of Phelp's interjections - in particular the hournalist referred to Phelps as a heckler - which substantiates the wikipedia's use of that verb in the article and moreover the end commentary states that Phelps justified his actions as those of a private individual - however the journalist did make reference to his paid position, once again verification for the inclusion of the material in the article about Nairn.  In a way this is too petty, but I am not prepared to have you censor material on the grounds of NPOV when you are in fact in my view distorting the use of that policy.  Right now the use of quotes in the citations for the article are a bit excessive but I think it is important that we substantiate why the material is included in the article on Nairn particularly while the election is going on.  Wikipedia is not news but I am loathe to remove material added by another editor on that basis - rather I would prefer to see such material supported by reliable sources - and yes I think the ABC is a reliable source I would even think the Herald Sun would be a reliable indicator of opinion.  Hansard is of course fine and also justifies that the incident occurred - Nairn was hardly denying it.  Note I did not add it in in the first place. see this diff and note the following edit.  --Golden Wattle  talk 21:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If a commentator was saying something other than factual: IE their own opinion, during an interview, it hardly represents the interview as it stands. Alone. By itself. The fact I was apparently 'censoring' material not directly relevant to even the subject of the wiki is insane. Unfortunately I don't know how to bring it to some sort of 'jury' or open voting forum, and I'd like to spend my time editing and improving on subjects I enjoy means I can't be bothered fighting this anymore. I can only hope for a better cleanup of this in the future.--AussieJess talk
 * In the first instance if you wish to bring it to some sort of forum, I suggest you take to AWNB (the Australia Wikipedian's noticeboard) - I will take it there for you but you should join the discussion - see WP:AWNB. For more about escalation of discussions or open voting forums ... see Dispute resolution.  --Golden Wattle  talk 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fresh pair of eyes to look at it. However I own a pair of ovaries =) AussieJess 14:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the assumption - most wikipedians are male but not all, including me Regards--Golden Wattle  talk 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)