User talk:Sealbag

Welcome!

Hello, Sealbag, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

The University of Sydney Feud
For the record, there's no actual obligation to notify you first if a page is being speedied — prod or AFD, yes, but speedy deletion comes only with the option of being notified if it's tagged by a regular editor (and if you happen to log on before an administrator does the deed, because there's no obligation to wait for you, either.)

At any rate, in truth I could have deleted the article under any of several criteria — but I chose "attack page" because you made some pretty loaded and one-sided assertions ("actively destroying the interest of students", "dissuasion of students from the causes it pretends to represent", "effectively meaningless elections", etc.) that were in clear violation of our neutral point of view policy. It needs to be noted that your article contained no proper reliable, independent sources that attested even to the basic notability of the dispute, let alone any of the factual assertions; every single "source" you provided was a blog with direct affiliations to one side of the matter (well, except for the one that was a petition), and another user had already tagged it for notability with very good points on the talk page as to why it was tagged.

An article about the dispute might be acceptable, if sourced to real media (not blogs, not petitions) and written in a way that provides a fair and neutral examination of both sides — but as written, it simply was not and is not appropriate or acceptable on here. The tone was unacceptable, the bias was unacceptable, the lack of real sourcing was unacceptable. Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)