User talk:Dhorsetrader

November 2012
Hello, I'm Bilby. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, AWU scandal, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bilby (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've re edited the changes with a link to the source that has the complete timeline Timeline: How the AWU affair unfolded http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/timeline-how-the-awu-affair-unfolded/story-fng5kxvh-1226523052478
 * I've had to remove it again. That source doesn't mention anything about Wilson being married and having children at the time. - Bilby (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on AWU scandal. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

AWU affair
Hi! I didn't remove the source you added, but used it in the previous paragraph. My hassle at the time was that it was a three month old source, so I'm not sure we can say "currently being investigated", as that may not still be the case. Anyway, I've added "Victorian police opened a new investigation" to the paragraph before, so hopefully that is ok. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, Thanks fo rthe message.

The AWU matter is still on currently being investigated, If you prefer here's a more recent link

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/police-extend-awu-slush-fund-inquiry-20130123-2d7d2.html#ixzz2IpqoUP3K

JAN 24th, hence the previous statement " currently being investigated" is correct, Could you please reinstate that statement, Thanks,

"Victorian police opened a new investigation" does not convey the message that the matter is being investigated right now. Thanks.


 * Hi. I'm raising the question as to whether or not it is reasonable to say "abruptly resigned" on Talk:AWU affair, so I guess we'll see where consensus lies. However, your addition of the claim that Gillard never directly denied improperly witnessing Blewit's power of attorney is a serious BLP violation, so I have reverted it. In the official transcript, in response to the question "So were you there to witness this power of attorney?", Gillard states "I've said publicly on more than one occasion I did nothing wrong, and I did nothing wrong in the witnessing of this power of attorney." That is a direct denial.

That is not a direct Denial > The question was "were you there" ? The answer should have been Yes I was there. I did nothing wrong is OBFUSCATION.

I've also removed your second claim that Gillard is being separately investigated, because once again this is a significant BLP problem. You used two sources: michaelsmithnews, which is unreliable, and the Financial Review , which is not. Neither, however, say that she is being separately investigated -

Incorrect > the very headline of the Michael smith article is "Julia Gillard is currently facing very serious allegations and Victoria Police are investigating those allegations" this is as clear as it could be, What else would you prefer?

The FR article says: The Prime Minister could be caught up in a criminal investigation. Victorian police appear to be taking seriously an allegation made by serial campaigner Michael Smith.

You claim that Michael smith sources is unreliable, however obviously Victoria Police don't think so. If it is reliable enough for Vic police then I'd think it is reliable enough for Wikipedia. Whether you think so or not.

...only that there is an investigation into the AWU affair, which is already mentioned in the article, and that they are looking into the allegations made by Smith, which is also in the article. There is nothing to say that Gillard is being separately investigated, and without a very reliable source saying otherwise, we cannot include that claim in the article. - Bilby (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have to disagree, and I have to regard these additions as against Wikipedia's policies. In order to witness the signing of a Power of Attorney, the witness is required to be present - Gillard cannot claim to have properly witnessed the signing unless she was there, so that seems like a very clear denial. It is also clear that Victorian police are looking into the AWU affair, and that as part of that they looked into the signing of the Power of Attorney. What isn't clear, and is very unlikely, is that they are conducting a separate investigation, and none of the sources you have referred to make a claim that there is a separate investigation being conducted.
 * If you wish to include any of this, you will need to raise it in the talk page, although I feel that it is unlikely that you will be able to get an agreement to include either claim. - Bilby (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of Bias in the ABC
Allegations of Bias in the ABC was deleted because a community discussion determined that the article did not meet our inclusion guidelines. You can view the deletion discussion here: Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_Bias_in_the_ABC. If you wish to contest it, you can do so by initiating a Deletion review. - MrX 16:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)