Talk:Bob Day/Archive 1

prod/AfD - thoughts?

Like George Colbran, Day is a failed candidate. However Day did found Homestead Homes and Home Australia which now own other similar companies, directs one, long-time secretary of the H.R. Nicholls Society, founder of Independent Contractors of Australia (ICA), and much more (see page). So i'm more hesitant to prod/AfD this. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Suggestions

As a Family First member I've decided to not edit this article directly, but we should add this ref,[1] indicating Day is no longer a CIS board member. Also in that paragraph classical liberal should be linked. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of PDF refs, especially bulky ones. Any other refs available? Timeshift (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can find. And a PDF link is definitely better than no reference at all. The style guide WP:MOSLINK suggests a note if the link is large (2.7MB in this case). Peter Ballard (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it, if the statement isn't controversial? Timeshift (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything should be referenced, as far as is reasonably possible. And being a board member of the CIS could certainly be seen as controversial. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Code for the Infobox

It has been reverted. Here it is:

Bob Day AO
Family First
Personal details
Nationality	Australian
Political party	Family First

And why does he need an infobox? He isn't an elected politician. Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Whitewashing Bob Day

I've reverted your contributions, I also notice I restored over 2,600 characters in doing so. This page has had a lot of issues lately with people trying to remove what they see as negative. Before making any controversial changes and to avoid edit wars, please discuss on the article talk page. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to do better than that. As it sits, the article looks like a political attack ad on American TV. Please consider incorporating the changes I've suggested and creating a more balanced article. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is not "whitewashing". Fred Talk 21:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I dispute your edits. Here is the full revert, reading just the lead tells everyone what is going on. You removed the facgt he is a millionaire, and added "successful Australian home builder" instead of businessman. As your changes are disputed, please discuss on talk page what specific issues you have and what specific changes you want for those particular issues. Timeshift (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The volume of characters restored represents the content of a lengthy tendentious quotation from a partisan political source that probably should not be used as a source, let alone be quoted at length. Attempting to explain the voting system for the Australian Senate in the article is also inappropriate, as is removing the link to Bob Day's website. He may represent a dangerous tendency in Australian politics, but he's not a dog. Fred Talk 21:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You may call it a partisan source (note the SMH is a WP:RS, the Australian Conservative is not), but what is in there that is untrue of Bob Day's views? As I said, please discuss on talk page so we can thrash this out if you wish. And it is not inappropriate to quote what a quota is in relation to the vote FF receive(s/d). One thing I don't have an issue with is linking to Bob Day's website - entirely appropriate. As for your last sentence, please stop implicitly accusing me of running an agenda, thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which your pattern of editing is evidence of. It is much better to simply state what happened in an objective way and let the reader draw their own conclusions. A Wikipedia article is not a vehicle for political campaigning, amateur or professional. Fred Talk 21:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My contributions show I am balanced on both ends of the spectrum. Timeshift (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fred, please assume good faith - it's highly unproductive to accuse editors (and particularly most long-standing editors) of being biased. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens, in your zeal, you even deleted the result of the Mayo election. Fred Talk 21:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops! (In my zeal...?) Timeshift (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Not my first rodeo... Fred Talk 21:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So when are you going to fix your reversion? Who won the election? Is the matter still up in the air and undecided? Fred Talk 22:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Senate results are not yet decided if that's what you're referring to. Yes, it is still up in the air. Timeshift (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The source the article cites says it's over. Is there something I'm missing? Do you have a source that says otherwise? Fred Talk 14:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not over. Try looking at the official AEC results? Good enough source? Lovely. Timeshift (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide a link. Certainly it has progressed beyond the 20th ballot at this point. Fred Talk 13:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The 20th count was there from day 1, it is a computerised calculation based on results obtained thus far. No results are final. On what basis do you say they are exactly...? Just an overseas reader assumption perhaps? Timeshift (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The link you keep reinserting is to the 20th ballot. The website has progressed to a final, if provisional, result, on the 23rd ballot, I think. Fred Talk 14:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggezt to research things you do not understand before commenting on them. All the counts have been there since the votes began to be counted. The way the ABC computer works is it adds all votes that have been counted, whatever they may be, and processes them and their preferences to see what a final result might look like, hence, "provisional". Bob Day wasn't in there initially, then he appeared for a few days (hence the contrib and ref in this article ) but then disappeared again. All preferences used to calculate are above the line predetermined preferences, the AEC only adds below the line prefs at the end, and this has not yet occurred. Ask on the 2010 federal election talk page if you wish. Timeshift (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 election

Timeshift9- Your edits are not supported by the sources. The ABC did not project Bob Day to win the senate seat. If you disagree then find a source that supports your claim. The AdelaideNow site makes no mention of any ABC projections, nor did it itself project that Bob Day would pick up the seat. There is a reason why they used the term "possibly" which was that they did NOT project that he would win, but rather stated that the trends indicated a possibility of his election. When seats are too close to call projections are specifically not made. A more detailed article that probably relates to why you think you are correct in this matter is here -http://leader-messenger.whereilive.com.au/news/story/bright-day-beckons-as-bob-edges-ahead/ The point that I am making which you might not have yet appreciated is that projection is a totally different matter than what was being reported. The results at 83 counted are one thing, but that is far from a projection. This is why projected needs to be removed. After it is you will see why the entire sentence is pointless. Unless you can find a source that actually did have a projected election of Bob Day (rather than a mere expression of possibility) I am going to remove the unsubstantiated claims.Ninahexan (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone hasn't been paying very close attention to the seat projections. Here is a link confirming that Day was projected to win for a while. Frickeg (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

They even attempted to argue Family First had a pro-WorkChoices policy. These overseas contributors have a lot to answer for!! Timeshift (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You are indeed correct, people don't seem to be paying close attention.

"In the last week of counting, Day's vote has risen 0.05% while the Liberal vote has fallen 0.23%. This spells trouble for the Liberal Party's David Fawcett. Yesterday this trend resulted in Day pulling ahead of Fawcett for the first time. The crucial count sees Labor leading the count, with who finishes third out of Fawcett and Day being excluded and electing the other to the last seat ahead of Labor. Currently Day leads 72,324 votes to 71,812 for Fawcett, just 512 votes in the race. However, to reach this point the model assumes all votes are ticket votes. Fawcett needs only 1,381 preferences while Day's total includes 36,666 preferences. There will be very few below the line votes factored into Fawcett's total, while the current total for Day would include more than a thousand below the line votes. Unless Day's vote continues to increase relative to Fawcett, he is unlikely to win the last seat. On current figures, his current lead is not strong enough to withstand the drift of preferences away from him once below the line votes are factored. Data entry of below the line votes will continue for at least two weeks before the AEC hits the button and conducts the distribution of preferences. At this stage the DLP are just far enough ahead in Victoria to have a chance of winning. The Family First lead in South Australia is not large enough for Bob Day to be certain of victory." He was not projected to win- Green makes the point that I was making- the count at that moment had Day ahead, but that he lacked the preferences for that to allow for a projection. If anything, even at that stage in the counting Green was suggesting that Fawcett held the advantage, though this isn't the point- he didn't project a winner at all. That's why I was removing the sentence. Ninahexan (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You do not know what you're talking about. "In South Australia, the lead of Family First's Bob Day is more tenuous, a narrow 512 votes under the model assuming all votes are ticket votes. In the last week of counting, Day's vote has risen 0.05% while the Liberal vote has fallen 0.23%. This spells trouble for the Liberal Party's David Fawcett. Yesterday this trend resulted in Day pulling ahead of Fawcett for the first time." In the ref, he refers people to his updated-every-15-minutes-Senate-calculator here. Antony says Day pulled ahead of Fawcett for the first time on 3 September. As such, Antony changed his projection page. Fawcett was no longer listed at number 6 on that link, Bob Day was, and remained there for a few days as he had the lead and the projection. This is also supported in Australian federal election, 2010 diffs where Family First was added to the Senate table based on those ABC projections - where consensus was to use those ABC projections for the Senate table and update as needed. Bob Day was projected to win. Timeshift (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And perhaps that is the disconnect- the tables are not projections they are calculators, and they are not updated after projections are made, they relate only to the up-to-date counts. A projection is made by a person interpreting the calculators and the patterns in the vote counting. That is what Green does in his text, and you can clearly see that he did not make a projection for Day. He specifically made it clear that the calculator does not provide a prediction, and went on to explain why by explaining the preferences. So no, it wasn't a projection. The closest he came to that was this "Unless Day's vote continues to increase relative to Fawcett, he is unlikely to win the last seat. On current figures, his current lead is not strong enough to withstand the drift of preferences away from him once below the line votes are factored". He referenced Day's lead at the time, and said that it wasn't enough. Did you understand what he meant when he discussed preferences? If so, how could you possibly retain your assertion that he projected Day to win? Ninahexan (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you fail to understand? "In South Australia, the lead of Family First's Bob Day is more tenuous, a narrow 512 votes". Day had a lead and this was reflected here. At that point in the count, Day has the lead. It is that simple. The entire Australian wikipedia political community accepted this for days at Australian federal election, 2010, an article that has been scrutinised by many to the enth degree due to the parliamentary situation. If it was wrong it would have been removed. Out of curiousity are you from Australia? I ask that if you continue to insist, that you request more comment from somewhere like wikiproject australian politics. Timeshift (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand your failure to understand. Having a lead is not a projection. A projection relates to an extrapolation based on data. The lead you are referring to is the data, while other factors such as preferences and vote count trends inform the extrapolation in order to form a projection. It's not my place to give an opinion about other pages that might reflect sources poorly. To satisfy your curiousity I am Australian, living in Australia, and my native language is English- which is how I came to understand the definition of the word projection and my insistence that it be used correctly. Ninahexan (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Some proper talk page discussion in the interests of consensus. I have made some wording changes which hopefully addresses your concerns. I would appreciate Frickeg and other editors' opinions on this as well. Timeshift (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Projection: "a prediction made by extrapolating from past observations". I am not quite sure how the election calculator does not count as a projection; nowhere does it limit it to human observation. However, the new wording removes any doubt and I have no problems with it. Frickeg (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for protection

Due to editwarring by User:Timeshift9 I have requested page protection. Fred Talk 18:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

See above. The page needs to be protected from you, who is insisting on unilateral changes without consensus, and not prepared to discuss to form consensus. Please follow wikipedia guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fred, I understand your position (as a fellow OTRS agent) but I think you're being a little disingenuous here. Bob Day is a controversial public figure, that much is clear from the RS coverage of him. In all the accusations I've seen in my time here (coming close to 5 years now) that Timeshift9 has a conflict of interest of some form, across a range of sometimes contradictory topics, no-one has ever been more specific or raised any evidence in support of such an allegation. I can vouch independently, having seen non-public evidence, for the fact that he has never been a member of a political party or campaigned in an election for or on behalf of any candidate or cause. He is simply an editor of known views who, for the most part, edits within the site's guidelines and seems to be good at finding enemies who are new to the site and do not edit within the site's guidelines. Orderinchaos 19:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not a question of who he is but of his editing behavior. I understand that Bob Day is a controversial public figure; what I can't accept is that nearly every edit I've made to this article, good, bad, or indifferent has been reverted by this editor. Fred Talk 01:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because you're not editing out of interest but rather on Bob Day's complaints... who has the COI exactly?? :) But in all seriousness, review the article's history, on the whole I am not reverting contributor's edits except where it's warranted and i've explained why. Question... of the people who've added their 2c here why is nobody backing you? Timeshift (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The "consensus" is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is not negotiable. Fred Talk 01:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pure and utter cop-out. Consensus and discussion are paramount. Timeshift (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In life, yes, neutrality is a cop-out, but this is an encyclopedia, see WP:SOAP. Fred Talk 14:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop the wikilawyering and bad faith. Timeshift (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Still no talkpage discussion and no consensus

Still there remains unilateral edits with no consensus, and there is still zero talkpage discussion on the issues and how to fix them. The latest issue is that i'm being told Bob Day never made it in to the ABC provisional count. He did! That's what spurred The Advertiser's news article! Bob Day was listed sixth here for several days before being removed again. The Australian federal election, 2010 diffs support this - if it wasn't true it would have been reverted quick smart! Assistance from others would be appreciated. As for the SMH quote that's being removed, i'm still waiting for talkpage discussion. Has anyone attempted to form consensus? No. You cannot just remove all of Bob Day's political positions contained in the quote without an adequate replacement. Also, since when does/did Family First support WorkChoices? They didn't! The person doing the edits doesn't even know what they're talking about! Timeshift (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What was their position? The opinion piece must have been about some disparity between Bob Day's earlier position and his conformity to the Family First platform. Perhaps you could try rephrasing it rather than simply reverting. A lengthy quote from an opinion piece is not a reliable source, at least not with respect to the opinions of Bob Day, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion. Fred Talk 06:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Now we might be getting somewhere. Can you sandbox up your alternative here? Removal isn't an option, all of the views on this page that Bob Day holds are correct. If one was to read this page, one could come to the conclusion it could be written better, but all the facts are facts. To remove this is censorship of his views - views which are rather on the extremer end than the centrist end of right wing politics here in Australia. Thankyou and thankyou in advance for willing to start discussing and proposing and coming to a consensus. Timeshift (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The views expressed are those of the editorial writer. Actually, what I would like to do with that is to put it in external links as an interesting opinion regarding Bob Day. "views which are rather on the extremer end than the centrist end of right wing politics here in Australia". Yeah, I got that in the first 10 seconds, and I know how irritating such views can be and the alarm they can produce if taken up by the public; I do live in the United States and closely watch developments here. However, shaping public opinion in a responsible way is not Wikipedia's mission; that is what op-ed editors do. Which is why that long quotation is unacceptable as content per se. If the information in it is from reliable sources and fairly reported, we can find it ourselves. Fred Talk 14:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (actually that was imposed, to a certain extent), and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Fred Talk 14:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have copyedited the introduction, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Day&diff=next&oldid=384994906 but left the quote in for now, but do nor view it as a reliable source for the facts in it, nor agree that copying it to Wikipedia is appropriate or necessary. My copyediting is intended to correct the error that Family First supports WorkChoices and also to provide some links to the subject under discussion in order to increase the possibility of understanding the dispute by people not familiar with the issue. It is still not optimal. Fred Talk 21:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In your dire insistance on removing the quote, I continue to remain surprised and skeptical as to why you have not yet been willing to sandbox up a non-quote replacement for that section which includes all of his beliefs mentioned. I'll repeat again... nothing in this article is untrue. Timeshift (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's drop the redundant detail about the history of the Senate count

OK. Day missed out on the Senate. The sequence and "drama" of the count over the past three and a half weeks is irrelevant to the final result. I propose that it be removed and we simplify it to say "At the election, Day and Family First received a swing of about 1.2 percent to finish on about 4.1 percent of the vote, and failed to win a seat." (With appropriate references of course.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I broadly agree with this, despite my comments above, which were aiming to establish the verifiability of the point. I'd prefer some mention of the fact that he came very close, though (even if it's just by saying "narrowly failed"). Frickeg (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is what I tried to do some time back. If there has been any actual suspense, which there was not, the "close" result might have been very interesting, but now it is finally really, really, over. Fred Talk 13:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of "swing" needs to be defined somewhere if it is to be understandable to a global audience. I assume it is the amount of change in the percentage of votes a party receives in one election compared to the last one, but I've not quite sure even about that. Fred Talk 13:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No we do not need to define what a swing is, just like we do not need to define a swing for all 225 MPs in federal parliament. Timeshift (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Or we could just link it to Swing (Australian politics). Frickeg (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's incredible what we can achieve when people want to form consensus by discussion. Thanks Frickeg, adding now. Timeshift (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Day did come close to winning, and he still did. But at one point he actually had a 512-vote lead over Fawcett, enough to spurn Antony Green and The Advertiser in to writing about it. It is noteable. I've made a couple of modifications, reflections welcome... Timeshift (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but much of the article is inside baseball and incomprehensible to anyone not immersed in Australian politics. Fred Talk 13:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I happen to think it's an excellent summary, Frickeg another regular OzPol contributor has no issues with it. Timeshift (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem: there are aspects mentioned in the sections on elections that only an Australian could understand. Fred Talk 00:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact this is a global site does not mean we cannot go in to detail about how he got so close but fell short. Use wikilinks and better words to help the globe understand it. Timeshift (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should say that - he just fell short - but to describe the status at various points in time while the count was underway is pointless. It's just an artefact of the process. It says nothing about his true success or otherwise at the poll. So yes, describe the final result, in as much detail if you want, but don't waste electrons on truly meaningless detail of the day by day count. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I happen to think it's noteable that Bob Day made the ABC's Senate projection list (and the associated media articles that came from it). You don't. Timeshift (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't. It's like barracking at the Brownlow vote. (For foreigners, that's the local, end of season, pro football, best player award.) The votes are already cast. The order in which they are counted has no ultimate significance at all. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion. I happen to agree noteability derives from the fact Bob Day made the ABC's Senate projection list, and the associated media articles that came from it. Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But even that list was a transient document, created simply because the ABC is expected to have news every day. And ultimately it was wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately it was wrong... like Dewey Defeats Truman...? :P Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this is a somewhat less notable event. We don't want Wikipedia to make news out of every time the media or pollsters get predictions wrong. That would be nonsensical. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly. And clearly, the :P did not convey the sarcasm required. I was making a point. Sigh. Timeshift (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:POV

I have added Template:POV to the article. I believe the negative bias results mainly from Timeshift9's editing, but understand that attempts by Family First supporters, possibly including the subject, have played a role. Insistence on including the entire text of an opinion piece criticizing the subject is a good example of the bias in the article as repeated removal of a link to the subject's website is evidence of biased editing. Fred Talk 00:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've asked you to come to a consensus on how to include the views he has in that piece, because they are important noteable views. You have not attempted to reword it or change it, but simply remove it, removing all of his views on that subject. You continue to accuse me of things, take me to noticeboards who reject you, and unilaterally edit war. Sit down and help for once. Timeshift (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am bringing WP:CONLIMITED to the your attention. It is possible that Timeshift9 is dominating the talk page in violation of WP:OWN and that mediation and advice will not solve the problem. Sadly ENL and WSQ will not help and the dispute resolution will give no further. Personally, I think it is a failure, when in the end WP is a collaborative process and no one editor can WP:OWN an article (even if a primary editor who considers opposing editors who can listen to opposing viewpoints is weclcoef). If Timeshift9 would seriously consider opposing viewpoints, then some on these problems would be alleviated. I hope I left enough of a paper trail if you decide to take matters further. Vyeh (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably touch typing in the dark during a high wind. Easy enough to understand though. Fred Talk 22:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Coerced. Vyeh (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Bob Day dot Com

You say when removing the link to Bob Day's website, "and looking at the website, it seems a site designed to attack this site, with no mention of who owns the site (bob day? a fan?)". That is what can be expected when our article is negatively biased. That also can explain the repeated attempts to modify and blank the article. A biased article causes a lot of trouble. It makes Wikipedia look biased and results in people thinking that we have a political agenda or at least permit editors with an agenda to dominate article editing. As to the website, in his complaints to Wikipedia Bob Day cites that website as his. Fred Talk 13:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already said, talk about the issues here that you find problematic rather than condemning the whole article without any substance. "As to the website, in his complaints to Wikipedia Bob Day cites that website as his." - how could this be taken as evidence that Bob Day runs the site? It's a comments section! If it's Bob Day's website, as a political candidate he needs to clearly state who put up and authorised the site. The site does not have that. It's that simple. Timeshift (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The website went live after the date of the recent election therefore does not require authorisation as it is outside an election period. Maryogden 1:43, 14 September 2010.

It's still very questionable as to who wrote it. It is a very odd thing for a political candidate to put up a site defending himself without saying in some sort of "about" area or area down the bottom that it was written by Bob Day. We err on the side of caution. One also has to question, why does the website use non-WP:RS to attack the WP:RS used. Bob Day never actually defends HIMSELF, simply pastes a counterattack that doesn't actually counter the WP:RS article, and hopes that will be a figleaf. Note, what's actually on this page, someone who's a proud deregulationist wouldn't care about. The only ones who think this page has a point of view are those that are insecure about Bob Day being a complete deregulationist in the first place. Food for thought. Timeshift (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Your political opinion and discussion of the politics Bob Day represents is not a proper basis for determining the content of an encyclopedia article. Timeshift9, you have an obvious conflict of interest and should not be attempting to edit this article if you are unable to conduct yourself appropriately. This is not a political campaign, and no part of one. But you are campaigning, using campaign rhetoric, thinking as a political operative. The quality and correctness of you political analysis is irrelevant. This is not a political venue. That does not mean that critical analysis of Bob Day's positions should not be included in the article, but they must come from reliable sources and done by experts in contemporary Australian politics. Fred Talk 14:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your bad faith accusations. There is no obvious conflict of interest, because there is no conflict of interest! Everyone has a political view, this is not the same as a conflict of interest. What is in the article is true, correct, accurate, verifiable, and comes from WP:RS. One could easily turn the question back on yourself and wonder why you are dismissing all of this, when one considers the start of this discussion above - you are/were prepared to use bobday.com.au despite the site having no legit ownership claims on it... this is ok but WP:RS isn't? More food for thought... Timeshift (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I became involved in this only after dismissing Bob Day's complaints for weeks as whining, but after making a few edits I can see there is a problem with your editing. The article is biased as the result of your editing. Yes, everyone has political views, yours, in fact, are similar to mine, but I have my Wikipedia hat on and you obviously have your political campaign hat on. That, contrary to your position, IS conflict of interest. We've called it "aggressive tendentious" editing, but what it amounts to is conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bob_Day where this discussion may continue. Fred Talk 15:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry? Has Bob Day been complaining to Wikipedia? I always have my wikipedia hat on, many people would vouch for my 4 years of balanced edits on both ends of the political spectrum. I'm often known to argue for things because they are correct despite whether it's good or bad and what side it comes from. I've asked you time and time again to dicuss on the talk page and form consensus rather than your insistence on unilateral edits without any consensus to change from the status quo. Timeshift (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS request. This matter could also be discussed in terms of Neutrality, or Biographies of living persons but probably should not be spread over several noticeboards, and I think the underlying problem is conflict of interest. We can discuss the matter of the webpage at the External links noticeboard if you wish though. Fred Talk 18:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand why this talk page is not being utilised to form consensus. Repeatedly, over and over, i've asked for some talk page consensus but have gotten none. Do what you wish. The changes you propose are disputed, if you wish to change from the status quo you require consensus. I've repeatedly asked for this and continue to await some actual consensus discussion. What specifically in the article is a lie? What needs to be changed, wording? Certainly none of the content should be removed, everything on the page is correct and of noteability. Do you really think anyone is going to endorse your comments if all you have done is attempted to blanket remove over and over without actually giving any attempt to discussing the individual issues and forming consensus on those issues? This is how wikipedia works. Timeshift (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw the issue about BobDay.com.au at EL noticeboard. This is clearly an official site. Why should there be a statement saying Bob Day controls the site when his name is on it? Even the most anti-EL editor agrees that the official site of a subject of a BLP should be included so readers can see what the subject has to say. Vyeh (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So GeorgeBush.com would be owned by George Bush and JoeBloggs.com would be owned by Joe Bloggs? What a pile of nonsense. ANY political candidate in Australia, past or present, who has a website, has an area somewhere stating who owns the site. Timeshift (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:ELYES#What_should_be_linked and Wikipedia:ELYES#Official_links. Fred Talk 01:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And which of the three points in that section you link are you laughingly trying to apply here? Throwing rules at me and taking me to pages to report me is going to get you absolutely nowhere until you actually shut up, sit down, and thrash out some talk page consensus. Sorry to be increasingly rude but you are not listening to me or others. Try it for once. Timeshift (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess you were right. The world IS upside down, see "Clicking Candidate.com, Landing at Opponent.com", Naw Fred Talk 06:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies as an official site. It makes no claim to even being authorized by Bob Day, much less controlled by him. It has references to support its biographical information. If it is his site, why would the references be needed? It does have a lot of useful information, such as publications actually written by Bob Day. The references and publications could be used to improve the Wikipedia article without adding an EL. It may be tempting to link to the entire list of publications, but it isn't the mission of Wikipedia to index everything he was ever written. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Before I begin, are the editors at this article aware of the convention of indenting? (And there is a handy tool of "outdent" surrounded by a pair of curly brackets) Please note that Fred has mentioned that Bob Day has identified the site as his in complaints to WikiPedia. (Fred, it would be nice if you could provide a reference.) However, I am an editor at the External Links Noticeboard and the guidelines also talk about applying common sense. I took a look at the site in question and it looks like an official site. If someone can provide a reference that says it is not owned by Bob Day, then I will reconsider my opinion. The External Links Noticeboard is part of the dispute resolution mechanism at WikiPedia. And this is my contribution to resolving a tiny portion of the dispute here. I am also an editor at Wikiquette alerts and I have asked my fellow WQA editors to take a look at this situation at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Timeshift9_in_regard_to_Bob_Day. As I noted, I am willing to reconsider my opinion that BobDaly.com.au is not an official site, but only if someone can provide me with a reference where Bob Daly or his representatives states that it is not his site. Feel free to continue this discussion at the External Links Noticeboard. Perhaps another External Links Noticeboard editor will get involved; however, I think this is a clear case. Vyeh (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd just like to say that I think we are allowing this page - which is, let's face it, about a minor political figure - to generate much more drama than it's worth, quite a lot of it apparently at the subject's instigation. I fail to see anything in the article that contravenes WP:BLP; quite frankly the allegations that it's biased are pretty ridiculous, although I'm not sure we need the great huge SMH quote. As for the BobDay.com.au site, it's pretty obviously a "preferred version" of this page, and definitely needs to be confirmed as an official site before it's included (it's nothing like any other candidate's official site, or indeed any official site of anyone I've ever seen). Caution seems best here. Frickeg (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Fred to provide a link for this statement: "As to the website, in his complaints to Wikipedia Bob Day cites that website as his." That should settle the issue of authorization. Vyeh (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's just say that after I responded to an OTRS request he made, he emailed me the address of his webpage. Fred Talk 21:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with how the OTRS system works. Is the request something that is available to editors? Not that I doubt your statement (especially since I doubt you voted in the Australian elections from Colorado and since you were an arbitrator), but it would help. The site looks like it was thrown together, but I see it wasn't part of the campaign and I imagine that whoever actually created the site isn't familiar with the sophistication of websites of some American politicians. Vyeh (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The site is entirely an attack site against this article for reasons unknown (is he that insecure of his own political views?), and the site does not say it is owned or run by him. If it were to, I wouldn't have an issue. But creating an attack site against this article and not putting a name to it does NOT qualify as a valid external link. Timeshift (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely dismayed at the lack of talk page discussion and consensus. This gives no avenue for re-adding the disputed link which is an attack site to this article and has no claim of ownership. DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS. It is not hard. If consensus rules against me, so be it. But so far there has been no good will to form a consensus. I am very disappointed people continue to willingly ignore following wikipedia guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The site looks legit to me. I don't think the fact it can't be proved he owns it is an issue. Even if he doesn't own it, it's still about him so is a decent external link. So what if it attacks Wikipedia. That's Bob Day's prerogative. Donama (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you question why Bob Day's name isn't mentioned? All other sites for people in political parties always state who the author is. Nevertheless I appreciate your contribution, it assists in forming consensus which so far has been severely lacking. Let's get a few more opinions here so we can actually form a consensus. Until then, standard wikipedia rules apply - disputed contribution, so no addition until consensus formed. Timeshift (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Timeshift. I agree with the principle of "if in doubt leave it out" with regard to ext links, especially in living biographies (WP:ELBLP). Donama (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and one more point, if we do include this link in the end, it should not use the text 'Official link' unless it can be proved Day controls it (per WP:ELOFFICIAL). Donama (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Again thanks. It is truly disappointing that some people waste so much effort without willing to enter in to discussion and consensus which is easier and more productive. Timeshift (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion going on at Talk:Bob_Day#Bob_Day_dot_Com covering this very subject until Timeshift9 decided to creating another section covering the same topic. Note that WP:CONLIMITED is a limit on what consensus at the article talk page level can accomplish. Vyeh (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus discussion at any point from people such as you who want to add the link. I created a new section in repeated attempts to draw other editors' attention to the issue in attempts to form consensus... due to your godawful consensus attitude. Take some responsibility for once please. Timeshift (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.

I am somewhat at a loss as to how to "prove" the site is Bob Day's. Whois of the address goes to a hosting company which provides a "free" web address, so no help there. It is technically possible I'm being spoofed by a third party, but the person's email address is consistent with Bob Day. It is not an official website. He's not an office holder. The thing is, putting a link to the subject's website on our page should not be a major struggle. That is it is indicative of bias which doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article, let along one that is a biography of a living person. Fred Talk 11:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The editwarring continues: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Day&diff=385106234&oldid=385105705 with the comment "what is it you fail to understand?" Indeed, what is it you don't understand? A link to the subject's webpage is generally acceptable. This is both common sense and written into our policies, see External_links#What_should_be_linked

Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below.

You seize on the language "official site" without having any good reason to doubt that the site is controlled by him and refuse to accept my word that he has personally corresponded with me about the link to the website. You ask for talk but when you get talk which inevitably is about the relationship between your editing behavior and Wikipedia policy you dismiss it. Fred Talk 13:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an attack site of this site, is of an Australian political candidate, and has no mention of whose site it is. This is all very very strange behaviour of a politician running for or having run for elected office. I am glad you are now discussing but you really do need to cease your bad faith accusations otherwise this will not be productive. Timeshift (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is hardly surprising that the subject has taken the trouble to create a website which counters the negative bias in our article. Fred Talk 00:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

One would have to question why you are claiming that the article "does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" when you previously claimed that you had ignored Bob Day's email whinges for weeks but it was only when you attempted to make a few small changes that you realised there was an issue (or so you claimed)? The plot thickens. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How to identify a website's owner

You use the whois tool to find out who owns a website. For the definitive word on Aussie sites, go to http://whois.ausregistry.net.au/whois/whois_local.jsp?tab=0 and put in the name of the website. In this case, it says that "B & B Day Pty Ltd" is the owner. This gov.au webpage says that the owner of the Pty Ltd is named "Bob Day" and lives in South Australia.

Now this doesn't prove that there couldn't be two men with the same name in the same state, but I think it is, at minimum, extremely likely that this website really does belong to the person who is the subject of this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

He's a politician. Regardless of who owns it, I think it's pretty obvious that consensus is required to include an external link for a site designed to attack this article, with no name attached to the site as to who owns it. Timeshift (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care if that website says we're all wet. Really: We care whether it's controlled by the person we're writing about, and whether it has anything at all to do with the reason we're writing about the person. Beyond that, if what a notable person wants to say is that Wikipedia is run by Martians as a plot to take over the world, we do not care. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Verification

Dear Fred

I can confirm that Bob Day is our Managing Director and confirm that his
email address is as you have stated ie [redacted] 

The link you have included ie http://www.bobday.com.au/index.htm is
correct.

Regards

[name redacted] |  

Executive Assistant & Company Secretary
Home Australia 
[address and phone number redacted] 
http://www.homeaustralia.com.au/

Fred Talk 00:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It comes down to consensus. If people do not think a site of such a nature with no claim to ownership, then it stays out. If people do think it belongs, it stays. The magic of consensus. There is no rule you can successfully argue if proper consensus were to say that the link should not be here. At the moment, we have a consensus discussion occurring and waiting for it to take it's course with the varied opinions of wikipedians. As your content is not status quo and is disputed, you are required to not include it until such time as consensus is formed. Timeshift (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is existing consensus regarding external links, see WP:ELYES

Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.

Fred Talk 00:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy and/or guidelines are not the same as consensus. I do not agree with your linking of one and the other. Timeshift (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific on how this is an "attack site"; upon reviewing the link, I cannot seem to find anything offensive. I presume you now agree that this is an "official site" of the subject of the article, so objections along those lines are moot. I'd like to understand your opposition as you now seem to be the only one opposing inclusion. Kuru (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the talk page, it is not just me. Read the site, it is an attack on this article! Why are you unwilling to let consensus discussion and more voices continue? I will not object to it's addition if this is done - as it is and should be! So much wasted time effort and energy... Timeshift (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read the site. It seems to be a simple biography. Could you please point out how it "attacks" this article? I'd appreciate it. Kuru (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The page was designed to discredit this page. That is an attack on this page. Read this article and then read that page. Timeshift (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, your contention is that because the site has different material that what is presented here, you feel that it is an attack page and should not be linked to? Kuru (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Clear? Stop the spin. I'll say it again. Read BobDay.com.au and then the article. It is designed to discredit wikipedia's article on him. That is an attack on this page. This is not the same as that site having "different material to what is presented here". Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel my word choice is spin. I will try to be more careful in my attempts to understand your point of view. I have again reviewed the material, and I do not feel that you have supported your argument, other than to reiterate the same claim. I would like to understand why you feel that the official site of a subject of a BLP cannot be linked to, and it seems your position is that the site "attacks" the article. This seems to indicate that you feel it is inappropriate to link to material that differs from the position of the article, or that provides a counterpoint. I'm not sure I follow why that trumps the long standing consensus on linking to official sites, but I would welcome the dialog. If you could please provide something more than "read it", it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel that way, I think these concerns are valid, I was hoping for consensus discussion rather than having a new disputed contrib added without consensus, repeatedly, over and over. I have tried again and again but you and the other one aren't listening and we're not getting many responses at all from other people. So I give up. Keep the EL :) Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing for the ownership information. I had tried whois, but obviously your tools are better than mine. It's now clear beyond any doubt that is an official site and should therefore have an EL. Case closed. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. (You have to go to the right registry for the TLD.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, we don't care if the website says this article is wrong. It's okay. Really. We link to such things all the time. When we talk about "attack sites", we're concerned about sites that attack real, live people, not sites that disagree with our articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

His own words

Bob Day has published a number of essays which set forth his political views. I think summaries of his views from those articles, which he does not dispute are his views, coupled with appropriate and interesting quotations should serve to fill out a more or less accurate, and neutral portrait. Fred Talk 14:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this edit and the comment to it is that material IS his political position. If it is "just fluff" that's his problem. We're not his handlers. Fred Talk 01:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What about it is useful for an encyclopaedia? Given that this is a primary source, not a secondary one, it's risky to use it as a source for anything except extremely direct information (eg. "I was born in X in the year Y" as a source for his birth place and year in the absence of conflicting sources). Please see WP:PRIMARY Donama (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"remove advertisement-like mentions of his website" His website is where he sets forth his political positions. It can be noted, or linked to over and over, but that's where Bob Day states his political positions. Fred Talk 01:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Again see WP:PRIMARY and that should help make this clearer. This is what distinguishes Wikipedia from a personal research project. Donama (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a little strange that http://www.bobday.com.au doesn't have an "authorised by Bob Day" signature on it. Perhaps it might be better to link to http://www.familyfirst.org.au/ which does say "authorised by R. Day", although his bio page a level or two below that seems to be carelessly authorised by someone else. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this at length. I'm in communication with Bob Day and have confirmed through both him and his company that the site is his. Fred Talk 14:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Thanks, Dingo1729 (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits by subject

Edits by the subject, either by himself or through a proxy which correct uncontroversial information are acceptable see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Non-controversial_edits. This edit either by the subject, or as the result of an email conversation is both appropriate and acceptable. If you wish to discuss it on the talk page or object the objection needs to be be based on some basis for contesting the reliability of the information. Someone telling you which of several offices they currently hold seems to fall will within this exception. Fred Talk 08:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

This edit corrects a mistake I made. The book, while it exists, is not readily available either in the book market or in any library. Fred Talk 08:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That's cool. As long as it's published and has an ISBN it's fine. Eg see on Google books. Donama (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Did not source

This edit ignores the good source given. Clicking on "Board of Directors" at the link given downloads or accesses a PDF file on the institutions website which lists the board of directors. Fred Talk 08:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Then we need to link to the PDF. Thanks for doing so. This was not clear to me when I went to verify the source. Donama (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)