| Revision as of 17:23, 5 September 2008 editAbd (talk | contribs)14,259 edits →Breach of contract section.: removed it for lack of sufficient notability.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:33, 5 September 2008 edit undoBidgee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,550 edits →Breach of contract section.Next edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| :Yikes. What exactly are you talking about? You are suggesting that we make our article factual but not pointed? Is the article currently "pointed"? I'm not sure. Please try to explain using simple wording what you're trying to express. '''~a''' (] • ] • ]) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | :Yikes. What exactly are you talking about? You are suggesting that we make our article factual but not pointed? Is the article currently "pointed"? I'm not sure. Please try to explain using simple wording what you're trying to express. '''~a''' (] • ] • ]) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::ACMA is a reliable source, perhaps, it's a government agency; however, the issue isn't the facts, but the notability. Minor license violations (including "serious" ones, which ACMA called the violation but which didn't result in any sanctions, as far as I could find, so how serious was it? They meant that it shouldn't be continued, and if it was, then they'd consider enforcement action). If the local fire department did an inspection and found a violation of fire codes, which they required be corrected, would this be appropriate for the article? I'd judge it by secondary sources. Was the ACMA notice discussed in the national press? It seems that there are a lot of these notices, and the editors taking the material out are correct, we don't have them in other articles, even for the exact same violation. That's no proof, perhaps they should be there, too, but it's merely an indication. I decided to remove the material. It doesn't deserve its own section, I'm pretty sure about that; if there were some extended controversy over their license, then that would justify a section, and this ACMA notice would be mentioned there. Another possible compromise would be an External Link to the ACMA notice, with brief description of what it is about. I'd do it if I had time today.--] (]) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | :::ACMA is a reliable source, perhaps, it's a government agency; however, the issue isn't the facts, but the notability. Minor license violations (including "serious" ones, which ACMA called the violation but which didn't result in any sanctions, as far as I could find, so how serious was it? They meant that it shouldn't be continued, and if it was, then they'd consider enforcement action). If the local fire department did an inspection and found a violation of fire codes, which they required be corrected, would this be appropriate for the article? I'd judge it by secondary sources. Was the ACMA notice discussed in the national press? It seems that there are a lot of these notices, and the editors taking the material out are correct, we don't have them in other articles, even for the exact same violation. That's no proof, perhaps they should be there, too, but it's merely an indication. I decided to remove the material. It doesn't deserve its own section, I'm pretty sure about that; if there were some extended controversy over their license, then that would justify a section, and this ACMA notice would be mentioned there. Another possible compromise would be an External Link to the ACMA notice, with brief description of what it is about. I'd do it if I had time today.--] (]) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Rubbish! It is notable. ] (]) 17:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:33, 5 September 2008
 | Australia: Northern Territory Start‑class Low‑importance   | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.Breach of contract section.
Hello, I came here from the editor assistance requests page. It seems like there is a disagreement about the breach of contract section. There are two relevant policies that should guide your discussion here. Firstly, everything controversial needs sourcing by reliable sources which it appears the section contains. Secondly, the topic of breach of contract needs to be handled in an unbiased manner. Let me know what you think. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've added no bias (All sourced facts from the report) and it's also about a community broadcasting licence breach not really a contract. Bidgee (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the section in question was removed again (edit summary: "Licensing breaches arn't listed on other media wiki's."). If nobody disagrees, I'll revert the removal. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was heading to do the same when I saw your post. Since this section is reliably sourced, I fully support keeping it in the article at this time. If the IPs who continually remove it would like to open up a discussion on the talk page and support their position, I'll be glad to listen, but without a new consensus, it's properly sourced material and belongs in the article. Dayewalker (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The comments on some of the reverts appear to be trying to say that such information is not in other articles so shouldn't be in this one. Off hand I don't remember exactly what the guideline is, but I do remember reading a guideline somewhere that says that just because a particular type of information is not in one article is not a reason not to have it in another similar article as long as it's reliably sourced or not controversial enough to need sourcing. Yes, I reverted the removal earlier and will do so again unless there is discussion and a change in consensus on this talk page. From here on, I'll consider undiscussed removal to be vandalism and revert accordingly. --Athol Mullen (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is probably a good example here. If the other editors want to come to the talk page and discuss this, and explain why they feel this piece of properly sourced material doesn't belong on this page, they're welcome to do so. I think we'd all welcome the discussion. However, until that point it should stay, and any drive-by deletion of it should be reverted. Dayewalker (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've got no issues with them discussing it but I have issues with removals of reliable sourced content that I sourced (With no POV). Bidgee (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is probably a good example here. If the other editors want to come to the talk page and discuss this, and explain why they feel this piece of properly sourced material doesn't belong on this page, they're welcome to do so. I think we'd all welcome the discussion. However, until that point it should stay, and any drive-by deletion of it should be reverted. Dayewalker (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The comments on some of the reverts appear to be trying to say that such information is not in other articles so shouldn't be in this one. Off hand I don't remember exactly what the guideline is, but I do remember reading a guideline somewhere that says that just because a particular type of information is not in one article is not a reason not to have it in another similar article as long as it's reliably sourced or not controversial enough to need sourcing. Yes, I reverted the removal earlier and will do so again unless there is discussion and a change in consensus on this talk page. From here on, I'll consider undiscussed removal to be vandalism and revert accordingly. --Athol Mullen (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Bidgee sourced the content but with no POV, about a little community station in the Northern Territory, one of over 400 in the Australia and decided arbitrarily that this breach should be highlighted, without malice of course as appropriate content for a global web resource. There is no doubt the ruling by the ACMA is official however the fact Bidgee decided (without POV) to add it deserves question. The other editors have a point in so much as "reliably sourced, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" drive-by deletions etc, but unbiased Bidgee's contribution is not. It beggars belief that this "random" contribution was just that "random". It is the act of someone with an axe to grind. It is not information, it doesnt serve a purpose, if anything it is a news item of little histroical worth not an encyclopedic inclusion. I welcome other input.Lantanabelle (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but you have a COI into Territoy FM (Which I've posted elsewhere on Wiki). This was not a small issue and it is information thats sourced, notable and is historical and it's not the only article which I've added ACMA's investigations such as 2YYY and I also think
2ARM(It's only got links ATM) has a section about a breach. I'll repeat I do not work for ANY radio stations, I do not work for ACMA, I do not have a POV against radio stations and I do not just add it just because I feel like it. The section is not negative to 8TOP (Territory FM) and it's not a news piece but it's facts. Bidgee (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)- The COI issue is irrelevant
because it is unproven. As for the content, I believe it does serve a purpose: it provides information. Lantanabelle, do you see anything biased about the text? Is there a way we could reword the section? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)- There is a COI (Was a few other things I posted as well somewhere about this but feel on deaf ears) but can't find the area posted this in. Also I've written it in a neutral POV based on facts by ACMA's report. Bidgee (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I just now saw that. Regardless, I'd still like to see what Lantanabelle would consider a more appropriate wording. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is a COI (Was a few other things I posted as well somewhere about this but feel on deaf ears) but can't find the area posted this in. Also I've written it in a neutral POV based on facts by ACMA's report. Bidgee (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- The COI issue is irrelevant
Thank you. In fairness and to remove malice may I suggest an approach that would appear fair for any Australian radio station listing which would cover both commercial and community stations and is factual but not pointed, allows access to fact without derision" REGULATORY AUTHORITY ACMA (Australian Communications Media Authority) is responsible for monitoring and ensuring Australian licensees comply with the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. ACMA takes a graduated approach to enforcement action and uses the enforcement powers available to it according to the seriousness of the breach. For details of this and any other stations compliance http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_91716.Lantanabelle (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Content is not malice. ACMA is a reliable source. Bidgee (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yikes. What exactly are you talking about? You are suggesting that we make our article factual but not pointed? Is the article currently "pointed"? I'm not sure. Please try to explain using simple wording what you're trying to express. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- ACMA is a reliable source, perhaps, it's a government agency; however, the issue isn't the facts, but the notability. Minor license violations (including "serious" ones, which ACMA called the violation but which didn't result in any sanctions, as far as I could find, so how serious was it? They meant that it shouldn't be continued, and if it was, then they'd consider enforcement action). If the local fire department did an inspection and found a violation of fire codes, which they required be corrected, would this be appropriate for the article? I'd judge it by secondary sources. Was the ACMA notice discussed in the national press? It seems that there are a lot of these notices, and the editors taking the material out are correct, we don't have them in other articles, even for the exact same violation. That's no proof, perhaps they should be there, too, but it's merely an indication. I decided to remove the material. It doesn't deserve its own section, I'm pretty sure about that; if there were some extended controversy over their license, then that would justify a section, and this ACMA notice would be mentioned there. Another possible compromise would be an External Link to the ACMA notice, with brief description of what it is about. I'd do it if I had time today.--Abd (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rubbish! It is notable. Bidgee (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)