User talk:Blackspurboys

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Black Spur, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Mvjs (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackspurboys - I created the article Queen of the Netherlands, not deleted it. It was nominated by User:Mayalld for deletion, and I wholeheartedly defended the article from deletion. Mvjs (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to John Brumby. Thank you. Orderinchaos 12:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Orderinchaos. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your post on my talk page:

A snitch and a state employee who smells bad? I'm in Western Australia. I wouldn't mind having the income of a state employee, but sadly, I am not so fortunate. I also am in the habit of showering every day, so I take great exception to your claims of malefaction.
The main issue is the wording and allegations. There's not even an attempt to use encyclopaedic language, and there seems to simply be a string of allegations mixed with opinion and original research. Wording such as "unbelievably high" (unbelievable by whom?) "a massive AUD$1500 million" - $1.5b is not particularly massive from a state infrastructure point of view. "revenue raising cameras" - while I don't like them either, alleging speed cameras are solely for revenue raising rather than road safety belongs in a blog, not here. "would have to be the fact" - WP:SYN. "greedy money grab...ensures" - pretty much just polemics. "a politically driven decision" / "hundreds of worried citizens" - polemics again.

I actually agree with you regarding Myki - it's been a disaster, especially compared to the relatively smooth and cheap implementation of SmartRider in my own state. (Sydney's effort at a new system, whose name I forget, is in an even worse shape's than Melbourne's - over time, over budget and the contract to complete it no longer exists!) Mind you, Melbourne's ticketing system at present is better than what we had before SmartRider, so the impetus to change may not be so great as it was here. I once ran an independent campaign at a by-election here against our government over public transport delays, and the prominence of my campaign actually helped to get one of the problems resolved. I also opposed anti-hoon laws as enacted here (it's basically just a hysterical reaction to public claims that law and order is breaking down), which your state pretty much copied off us.

However, my and your political opinions are not the issue here - we are required to edit in line with academic norms, basically. You have referenced the fact there are anti-hoon laws. You have referenced the various speeding fines and demerits, and an article which says Myki is in bad shape. The entire rest is unsourced opinion, and the wording creates its own issues. I'm definitely not against such claims appearing - but they must be referenced. For example, you might find a newspaper article where a prominent expert has laid into some aspect of the system, or a social psychologist has criticised the anti-hoon laws, and instead of saying what *you* think, you say what *they* think, and cite them (be very careful not to put words into their mouth in the process). Orderinchaos 07:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also - read up on WP:PA, and WP:AGF very carefully - you are lucky you have orderinchaos and his response - some admins might have blocked you on sight :) cheers Satu Suro 07:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had worse. :P But yes, definitely do not talk to anyone else on their talk page the way you did on mine. I can almost guarantee they will not be as tolerant as myself, and people routinely get indefinitely blocked for stuff like that. Orderinchaos 09:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for your second message, I suggest rereading the final paragraph of my previous response. If things are that bad, someone reliable will have said so somewhere. Like I said, the social psychologist explaining why hoon laws are populist garbage, or the motoring organisation chief saying they're unjust or whatever. With big projects like Myki, no doubt the opposition or the transport union or some academic working in sustainability will have had a few things to say. With all these, one doesn't have to offer an opinion. For example: Mr Jim Politician has been a strong advocate of "anti-hoon" laws[1], and has consistently claimed that they serve an important purpose and improve community safety.[2][3][4] However, the peak motoring body in the state, the Organisation Name, has criticised the laws for being "populist and serving no purpose"[5] and experts have described them as "pointlessly punitive" and "preying on the already disadvantaged."[6][7] See, now you've just presented a totally fair statement that gives both sides of the story using already published opinions, without having to use original research or hyperbole. (Oh, and don't use what I just wrote, I made that up - but it probably won't be that far removed from what you can dig up.)

Oh, and one final point - be careful to use reliable sources (the link for "reliable" at the top will tell you what counts). In general in the Australian context we have found that any news article from a major newspaper or newspaper's website, academic article or published book is OK to use, but opinion pieces in newspapers, blogs and community websites are not. While that probably sounds like it discriminates against minority opinion, you would be amazed what fun lurks in academic journals and serious news articles. Orderinchaos 10:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: orderinchaos

I never said that the BIO shouldn't be all positive or negative. Like any BIO on Wikipedia it needs to follow guidelines and policies. I'm not a fan of John Brumby however I don't let my opinion known on the article as it's not what Wikipedia is for. I've got no issue at all with the sources as they're reliable just that the wording has to be based around the sources. Bidgee (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]