Talk:Victor Dominello

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Australia: Politics Start‑class

	Australia portal Victor Dominello is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Gammon / User:202.146.8.4 (and now 149.171.184.45)

This really is getting a bit beyond a joke.

You are clearly the same person and your IP address can be traced to Victor Dominello's office:

User_talk:202.146.8.4

This is a violation of WP:OWN

You really need to think about what you're doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalwart111 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so your two accounts were blocked for vandalism and now you're using the IP at the university that your sock-puppetry account says you go to.

Your edits are a violation of WP:OWN.

Stalwart111 (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

I just tagged this article as being non-neutral as it reads like Mr Dominello's resume or campaign literature - the article is basically a long list of what's claimed to be his successes, many of which lack citations. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument could be made of any politician's page. It is often difficult to provide hard evidence of an MP's successes, which is why the majority of his experiences are linked to Hansard or to case notes. His legal career is noteworthy, given his age, and demonstrates his experience in the law. Gammon (Gammon) 06:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominello's legal career is basically non notable, with a few exceptions, but to have such a section longer than what he is known for, namely the Member for Ryde, should not be on an article such as this. If we have to list such career highlights as "securing injuctions" and other rank and file legal procedure then write it so that it explain why it is notable part of his career and why it should be part of the wiki page.Stravin (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Stalwart111 (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with NPOV tag - neutral language is as important as neutral facts. That aside, many of the things stated as 'facts' are in fact not cited at all.

Separately, A legal career is noteworthy but his is an elected Member of Parliament. Giving his legal career so much weight without factually and neutrally explaining his political achievements actually makes it sound like the person who wrote it is ashamed of his political record. I can see that's not the case so give some consideration to the way other politicians (many of whom have very good legal track records) present their personal history.

If you are going to suggest that an argument can be made 'of any politician's page' then you should probably include some pages to cite to reinforce your POV. For the record (I'll stick to State Liberals as that is obviously where your focus is); Greg Smith is an SC and the current Shadow Attorney General and his extensive legal career is given a passing mention. Chris Hartcher was the Shadow Attorney General and his legal career is cited the same way. Brad Hazzard is a solicitor and his career is given about the same passing mention.

The point of updating someone's information on wikipedia is to provide an ongoing but contemporary neutral, factual record (it is an encyclopedia after all) not to publish their resume. Individual cases in the 90's are not relevant to Dominello's achievements and goals now.

He is the only State MP with an entry like the one you have created and to be honest it makes him look a bit silly.

Stalwart111 (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

I have done some cleaning up of this page and remove a lot of non-notable information. This page still requires extensive referencing but i am confident that the damage done by the aforementioned editor has been reverted and much of the bias evident in this page is now gone. It does, however, require a lot more work to improve the quality. Stravin (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary titles and other reverts

You've been reverting the infobox titles quite a bit but if you had a look on other NSW politicians pages nowhere are there such overblown titles as yours, rather they are in favour of ones used on these page to name but a few: Barry O'Farrell Robert Askin Jonathan O'Dea

Items on Wikipedia are done on consensus and it is not good editing to have most other with one template but another on just one page - if you wish to have this version as the consensus-preferred i suggest you get other editors agreements for that but i am worried that this might simply be a case of:OWN. Let us discuss this before you make any more changes Stravin (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong?, look at the pages on the previous entry on my talkpage - things on wikipedia are done on consensus. It's pointless on this page. The full title could be put in the introduction. But no politicians in Australia have this template, so there's no reason why it needs to be on here. I'm just arguing for consistency's sake. Why you're so intent on the full title for this page, which is such a triviality, has me baffled.Stravin (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]