Talk:Dean McVeigh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice: User:DarrenRay, 2006BC and AChan are indefinitely banned from editing this article.
The users specified have edited this article or related articles inappropriately. The users are not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. The ban is indefinite, This ban was mandated in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC and is also registered on the administrators noticeboard.

Posted by User:Tony Sidaway for the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus (defaults to keep).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 16 March 2006. The result of the discussion was Redirect.

Contents

[edit] Talk: February 2006

Just a note to all concerned that I will be keeping this article under observation and that partisan and self-interested editing by all parties will be resisted. Adam 06:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Could I also suggest that those who are editing this article regularly become registered Wikipedia users rather than edit as anonymous IPs? This will reduce the current appearance that all this editing is being done by interested parties - which I'd hate to think was the case. Adam 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I have registered have previously edited this article. Another user seems keen to remove material despite it being well sourced. I will be re including it unless there is an explanation. Unitypigdog 09:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Those who sought McVeigh's appointment were either members of the Socialist Left faction of the Australian Labor Party or aligned to them giving rise to disputed allegations that McVeigh's conduct had a political motivation." - This statement is notsourced, and needs to be. Adam 09:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. For a start, one of them is Tim O'Halloran. He is employed at the office of Lynne Kosky, a Socialist Left Minister.[1] Will dig up the names and roles of others but I understand they were international students who voted with the Socialist Left. I know of no one who disputes this, just a matter of digging up the right source. Unitypigdog 09:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully that deals with the matter. Please let me know if anything else should be needed. I don't think there is any serious dispute about the facts as presented. Unitypigdog 09:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see this article is going to be fun. Everyone should just remember that Wikipedia entries can be traced to source, and that the internet is not a litigation-free zone. Adam 09:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I note you are unusual and put up your real name. I prefer not to do that but would be happy to identify myself to you should it be appropriate. McVeigh is certainly a controversial subject and seems set to become even more so as the full extent of his expenditure is revealed. Unitypigdog 09:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If the Union was placed into liquidation by the Supreme Court, as opposed to by motion of the union, how would the union have appointed the Liquidator? Xtra 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Now i remember. They went into voluntary liquidation. Xtra 13:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph is unclear:

He did not attend University, commencing work as an accountant in 1968 and after starting at a small firm, eventually ended up at a firm later acquired by and then stayed with KPMG until 1992.
  • How did he become an accountant without going to university?
  • "eventually ended up at" - when was "eventually"?
  • "at a firm later acquired by" - acquired by whom?
  • How did he get to KPMG?

Adam 09:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Good questions.

Accountants these days go to Uni but it was not always the case back in the old days.

Not sure about the other questions but they are probably in the references.

I think he ended up at KPMG via mergers etc of firms he was at and then stayed for some time.

From his site:

In 1968 Dean embarked on his career in Public Accounting.

He began a specialisation in Insolvency and Reconstruction in 1975, joining Hungerfords, which through merger, became KPMG Peat Marwick. In 1986 he was admitted to partnership in that firm.

In 1992 he joined Frank Jones & Associates as a partner to head the Insolvency Division.

In 1994 Frank Jones & Associates joined the Horwath Group. Dean retired from the partnership on 1 July 1999 and formed McVeigh Corporate Advisory Pty Ltd.


[edit] Deletion

It seems very strange that this article is being deleted. Unitypigdog 13:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The argument seems to be that he is not a "notable person" in the sense of Wikipedia's guidelines. He is an accountant who is professionally involved in a matter which of some notoriety in Melbourne, but he is not himself a public figure. This seems to me to be debateable. A lawyer acting in high-profile criminal cases, for example, becomes a "notable person" in their own right, so there is no intrinsic reason why an accountant cannot do so. It is necessary, however, to show how and why this particular accountant has become a notable person. Some users seem to want to suggest that his noteworthyness arises from allegations of professional misconduct against him. But airing these is potentially defamatory even if the allegations are sourced, and Wikipedia has recently become more cautious about defamation issues, as it should. Adam 13:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree this article should be not deleted and should be improved in balance and contain references that can be agreed on. I am particularly interested in his attempt to shut down a blog using contempt of court provisions, my own opinion is that this is a very serious issue both legally and in free speech terms. He is clearly notable for this if nothing else. 138.217.97.27 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In The Age archives there are 63 references to him, that seems like a lot. I haven't looked at all of the articles because they charge for them but he seems like a prominent insolvency practitioner. 138.217.97.27 14:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some problems

  • Use of the word censorship in a article heading is a bit POV.
  • In most cases, blogs entries are not suitable for citation. Citing the evil pundit of doom is one case where it is not appropriate. Thanks, Andjam 14:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There may be a less pejorative and appropriate description. What's the evil pundit of doom? 138.217.97.27 14:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Evil pundit is a blogger who was cited in the article. Andjam 22:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no discussion of the neutrality, verifiability and other areas in the article. Can someone kick that off? Userfreespeech 14:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the whole section on "freedom of expression". No such freedom exists in Australia. The closest thing is freedom of political communication, which is far narrower in scope. Xtra 07:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


I understand the need for wikipedia to be able to be able to verify the contents of an entry. It is probbaly useful then to breakdown the entry in parts. Firstly, his personal bio details. All much of a muchness and objective information. Early Career, again nothing problematic here all very matter of factly. Rugs Galore liquidation. Again, simply a fact. He was sacked by a Supreme Court judge during the Rugs Galore liquidation. If there is any dispute, here is the link to the judge's transcript http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/1999/126.html. Tim O'Halloran is a member of the socialist-left, does work for Lynne Kosky and did vote for the motion to bring the Union into Liquidation. Per Form 524 of the Australian Securities Commission it has been discovered that McVeigh has spent millions of dollars in litigation and has settled with most of the defendants per orders of Justice Hargrave which McVeigh presented to the court on Feb 10 '06. The defendants are aa matter of public record and the claim is available online from the court. The website makemcveighpay.blogspot.com is subject to court action by McVeigh and he is trying to shut down the website under criminal law's contempt of court. See link http://makemcveighpay.blogspot.com/ for a scanned copy of the summons. The same document is also available at court. I really find this debate about shutting down the site very concerning. i appreciate McVeigh may not like the site but that doesn not make it worthy of being pulled down. None of the entries about McVeigh reflect on him well, but that is due to his actions and not the reporting of the same actions. Everything is verifiable and fact. - Gupta

If the information is as available as you say it is, then you can provide individual citations for each accusation. Xtra 08:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
see below for why links from a blog are not considered reliable--A Y Arktos 09:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources is the policy on the use of sources. Most of the sources in this article are blogs. The policy queries the use of sources which "have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report" and suggests such sources "may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly." The policy further states "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources."

As the use of blogs are not acceptable under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources, all sources need to be substituted with more acceptable sources. The Age newspaper for example is fine as a source. Any facts that remain unsourced will need to be reviewed. I am retagging as noncompliant accordingly. The tag can be removed when sources exist for all facts that do not stem from blogs.--A Y Arktos 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Age is fine as a source? You're kidding, right? 59.167.73.44 02:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase Churchill, newspapers are the worst possible source, except for all the others. Andjam 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • per the policy wikilink above "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia." The Age will have teams of fact-checkers, reporters and editors. As per Andjam - they may be terrible, but they are all the source we have - blog items are not acceptable. I doubt whether McVeigh has come to the notice of the New York Times or The Times of London!--A Y Arktos 02:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madgwicks - so what?

What is the point of the factoid "Goldberg uses the same lawyers as McVeigh, a firm called Madgwicks solicitors"?A Y Arktos

Sorry - you really have lost me. One of the anon editors said in a recent edit summary "McVeigh says he handled Goldberg's insolvency, and then years later he appears in Poland, I couldn't imagine anything more relevant, please stop deleting relevant material" - please spell out the relevance for slow learners. This article is about McVeigh not Goldberg - the Goldberg article remains to be written and almost certainly should be. This is probably not the place to do it though. The dots do need to be connected and they need ot be relevant dots. McVeigh is not an old Polish name:-) --A Y Arktos 03:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The image of the scanned letter is not relevant. The scanned letter was merely an acknowledgement by the police that they had received an allegation from Mr Cass. Nothing more than a form letter and hence it is not relevant or notable. When and if Mr Cass gets his day in court, and should it be successful, then the fact can be mentioned. At the moment the police haven't even acknowledged Ben Cass has a complaint.--A Y Arktos 03:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I've semi-protected this article in repsonse to a request by User:AYArktos due to her concerns over recent edits by new or unregistered users. Please feel free to discuss issues regarding the content of the article here until a consensus can be reached. I'll consider unprotecting once the current AFD debate closes if the article is indeed kept. -- Longhair 04:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reopen debate on deletion?

If the current feud between Xtra and DarrenRay goes on much longer I am going to reopen the debate on deleting this article, on the grounds that: (a) insufficient data exists to write an NPOV article about someone who is only borderline "notable" anyway, and (b) the current participants are more interested in pursuing political and/or personal feuds than writing an article. Adam 09:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What about page protection? Andjam 10:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
We tried that at Andrew Landeryou and it just brought the problem here. -- Longhair 10:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Also Landeryou is a more genuinely notable figure. This article was started by people connected with the MUSU case to air their allegations against McVeigh. There have been several attempts to NPOV it, but that leaves almost nothing worth reading, because the only thing that makes McVeigh notable is the allegations. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and on some subjects we may just have to concede that there is insufficient neutral and verifiable data in existence to write an article. Adam 10:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

When is this court case expected to finish? I'm not keeping up with any news related to it, nor do I care for the outcome. With closure in the courts there'd be plenty of sourceable material. -- Longhair 10:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of when the court case finishes, the attempt by Landeryou and his supporters will continue to POV articles that relate to their activities with MUSU.Theusualsuspect 10:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
One hopes that when the case completes, sources used in the past such as personal blogs can be replaced with valid court publications and the like, ending the drama. -- Longhair 10:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The subject is notable, on any objective test, be it newspaper articles, direct and central involvement in an notable event.

Adam, Xtra wants the article deleted so your edict that any disagreement about the article's content will lead to you want it deleted seems not particularly even-handed. I have keen not engage Xtra in discussion not just to revert him/her. They have not really engaged at all in a discussion, do you have any other suggestions? DarrenRay 14:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Any editor who is directly involved in the proceedings should refrain from editing this article in order to ensure neutral point of view. Darren Ray has been named as subject to a writ issued by McVeigh. [2] Accordingly, his edits cannot be seen as neutral. I appreciate that he is keen to have issues of fact represented. The correct way to do that when you are the subject (even indirectly) of a wikipedia article is to raise issues on the talk page and request others to correct the article. See, for example, the extremely public discussion of editing by Jimbo Wales, discussed and referenced at Jimmy Wales#Controversy about Wikipedia's origins. See also the guideline at Wikipedia:Autobiography: You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. ... Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing. In this case, I would see that User:DarrenRay (who claims to be Darren Ray) has a conflict of interest.--A Y Arktos 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further evidence of a conflict of interest is that an intervention order was placed against Darren Ray going near Dean McVeigh. The magistrate spoke of Mr Ray threatening McVeigh through an email sent to McVeigh's solicitor. Although the magistrate described the email as an "infantile way of threatening Mr Fletcher", it was seen as serious enough to be dealt with by the magistrate who described the behaviour as unacceptable.[3]--A Y Arktos 21:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
AYArktos - like Ambi - has no interest in this subject matter of course. Forgive my scepticism, but you are an anonymous/pseudonymous author and I think in light of the above rant, I'm entitled to be gravely concerned about your independence. Please feel free to go through The Age, there are plenty more articles that attack me. It merely confirms the suspicions of those who presume you are just as much of an interested party as I am. Reveal your identity please if you wish to continue these attacks on me. DarrenRay 08:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The Age story referred to above mentions an "interim intervention order". This means the order was granted in the short term, pending a contested hearing. Most intervention orders issued order the defendant to remain 200 metres away from the complaintant. This order was issued for 50 metres. Why The Age reported this minor matter is anyone's guess. Was the order finally granted, and if it was, was it granted with the defendant's consent, or without? IO's are much abused in this country. Ask any single father. -- Longhair 23:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Longhair very good point. There was no order ever granted beyond the interim one, where we didn't even get to attend and dispute its nonsenical nature. DarrenRay 08:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • My point is User:DarrenRay (who claims to be Darren Ray) has a conflict of interest. Ray was the subject of an interim order (no idea what happened on June 14) and also a writ issued by McVeigh. No one could possible suggest Ray can be seen as neutral on the subject. He maintains a website http://www.musulies.com - wikipedia is not a suitable vehicle for this sort of editing - we are trying to write an encyclopaedia, not provide another forum for Ray and others to attack McVeigh. Ray has his forum for "overcoming the conspiracy of silence" about the Melbourne University Students' Union. The Age seems to have given the matter some airing in the past. If disinterested Wikipedia editors see that it is encyclopaedic, they will no doubt write about it. I don't think those with an interest in the matter should write on such articles, my view is derived from Wikipedia guidelines.--A Y Arktos 00:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see why Darren should be penalised for being honest and upfront about who he is when there seems to be a number of people here with the same conflict of interest who are using pseudonyms and refuse to be honest about their own interests in these articles. Instead of revert warring, people need to start discussing the issues and negotiating. I've read the talk pages and there is very little negotiating going on with any of these articles. Both parties are as bad as each other. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not fair, and it is not a soapbox for aggrieved parties. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia and thus neutral and unbiased. Darren has (unfortunately for him) openly stated his biases, and his edits demonstrate he is not trying in the least to be neutral. Most of his edits are unverifiable, unsourced or at best link to opinion and hearsay. If Darren's edits were unbaised and neutral, then I would not revert them.Theusualsuspect 02:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No-one is suggesting penalising Darren for being upfront. It is his continual ignorance of wikipedia rules and policy after being warned that is the issue. ps I do not have any conflict of interest here. Xtra 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A Y Arktos, I am entitled to a view. I disclosed the view. I welcome the high level of scrutiny my edits will inevitably receive. I reject AY Arktos's claim that only anonymous and pseudonymous editors (who clearly have their own undisclosed agenda) should edit the article. Please point me to the guideline that says I cannot edit this article, and I will gladly comply. Until then, please analyse my contribution on its merits. DarrenRay 07:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Following on from Sarah Ewart's point, I am willing to discuss every contentious issue or edit here in detail but no one will engage.

The main outstanding issue seems to be including a comment about Landeryou's blog. Given that Landeryou's blog is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, I am puzzled to understand the relevance. Please scrutinise my edits carefully but please also engage on the issues raised. Why is a comment about a blog not otherwise mentioned in the article relevant to Dean McVeigh? And perhaps a bigger question, why are some interested in attacking my bona fides and even disputing my right to contribute without actually addresses the issues on this Talk page? Perhaps it's time all editors disclosed their interest in the subject matter. Until then, this process of flaming me seems pointless. Let's discuss the issues and see where a productive approach might lead. I wouldn't assume that attacking me will discourage me. Can we move on from the attacks and actually have a discussion? DarrenRay 08:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • As per the request by User:DarrenRay for the "guideline that says I cannot edit this article" - it is (as mentioned above) to be found at Wikipedia:Autobiography, which states: You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. ... Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing. In this case, I would see that User:DarrenRay (who claims to be Darren Ray) has a conflict of interest and should not edit this article, or any other article associated with the Melbourne University Students' union. It is a guideline but one that is endorsed by the community. I have not said only anonymous or pseudonymous editors can edit, such editors also may have conflicts of interest and may declare themselves and act with respect. Why cannot User:DarrenRay contribute meaningfully to other areas of the wikipedia? It would seem to me that the answer lies very much with pushing his POV. His solution if he wishes to contribute to articles with which he has a conflct of interest is to request changes through the talk pages but not to edit directly, he can point out errors of fact and alternate sources on this page. I see no evidence that DarenRay has raised any issues of substance here. My declaration of interest in this matter is that I have never attended Melbourne University, have no interest in its student politics, have no connection with any accounting firm, nor with Dean McVeigh - I see myself as disinterested. I came to this article through the notice on WP:AWNB and am apalled at the lack of balance and encyclopaedic perspective in the article. My name will give you no further information on that subject - I chose to remain pseudonymous. I regard it as a breach of wikiquette to argue personalities and not the facts - in the case of DarrenRay, the personality has been brought to the fore and is obviously in breach of the editing guidelines, I would expected that wikipedia editors who are adults show the maturity to self-regulate.--A Y Arktos 11:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, now that I've removed the unneccessary talk page redirect. Doesn't seem notable to me. People with stronger cases of notability regularly get deleted. Whether a new AFD would achieve a concensus either way or help is rather more debateable. --kingboyk 09:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to avoid that as I doubt it will pass AFD again given the POV debate since the first AFD. I tried to compromise by taking the content pertinent to the MUSU liquidation and moving it into an article on the history of student services at MU. Looks like those with a patently POV involvement want to go the hard yards on this one. So be it. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit comments

DarrenRay stated in one of his recent reverts "please explain the relevance of someone's blog to this article, put the reference in Landeryou's article if you choose, doesn't belong here." The Landeryou blog was referenced by the magistrate in this reference[4] , an article in The Age on McVeigh and Landeryou. It also mentioned Ray (less than favourably). The only rationale I can see for Ray to remove the reference was because of the personally unfavourable mention. If he does it again, I believe that matter should be referred to arbitration.--A Y Arktos 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support that but I am too busy to get involved in that sort of stuff again. Xtra 12:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Recent edit comment said "no concensus to merge" - I think the AfD showed clear support for the merger.--A Y Arktos 23:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darren Ray - addition to this article

I have just added the following to the article:

Darren Ray, a third man being pursued by McVeigh in connection with the Union's insolvency, also runs a website attacking the proceedings around the MUSU liquidation, http://www.musulies.com/ , which makes various assertions about McVeigh, alleging biassed behaviour in the case of the Student Union liquidation and in the past. More recently, in 2006, Darren Ray has apparently been using Wikipedia to push his point of view. Wikipedia editor User:DarrenRay claims to be Darren Ray and has made various controversial edits to this article, in particular [5], [6], [7],[8],[9]. The Melbourne broadsheet which has reported on the MUSU liquidation, The Age, reported in 2005 that Ray had threatened McVeigh electronically through an email sent to McVeigh's solicitor, Nick Fletcher, which the magistrate described as an "infantile way of threatening Mr Fletcher". [10]

I believe it is important that the electronic attacks on McVeigh are documented in this article and they are seen in the case of Darren Ray to be more than a single instance. I think also the Wikipedia should be upfront that it is being edited by interested parties, in this case an editor who have a history of attacks through electronic channels.--A Y Arktos 20:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking more and more
  • the article isn't worth including here.
  • it's creation is merely overspill from the court proceedings and blogs to Wikipedia so they can continue their spat.
  • I'm leaning towards deletion.
I also reverted some of the additions from the most recent edits by AYArktos, see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, though that's not the only reason. This stuff just isn't encyclopedic. -- Longhair 21:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I did nominate this article for deletion once, I won't do so again, but will suport a second nomination. I agree McVeigh is not notable against Wikipedia criteria, but if the article stays in its present form then the MUSU related attacks need to be part of it. I appreciate the self-reference comment.--A Y Arktos 21:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd nominate, but I'm busy touching up the Rags to Riches article. Somebody else care to nominate this less entertaining 'Riches to Rags' story? :) -- Longhair 21:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a real issue here with how people conduct themselves with the article and its discussion. I don't want to be overly sensitive about it but I would ask that people actually discuss the article and their issues with me, I am certainly offering to do so and will continue to. DarrenRay 02:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to be editing the articles on Dean McVeigh but the page keeps disappearing. Why?

I don't wish to break the 3RR rule but I believe the bias involved in this redirection to be worthy of note. Dean McVeigh is a notable person, that is the issue, but it is prima facie evidence of bias to redirect his article to one about a subject area not directly about him. DarrenRay 10:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because many(most?) consider him not notable outside of his association with the MUSU liquidation. I had never heard of MUSU or McVeigh before I came across the POV edit wars on this article. I can see where this is heading. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I think McVeigh's an accountant, perhaps a controversial one, simply doing his job. What else has he done that we can all write about? It seems, the article was created by siders with the MUSU, and the rest of us have been culling the policy problems from within the article since. Content issues aside, I want to know, why is the McVeigh article still here? We barely kept Bert Newton's daughter for chrissake, and I'd reckon half of Australia at least know of her. -- Longhair 10:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy the subject of Dean McVeigh because of the unusual nature of the liquidation. I know one of the parties - Darren Ray - who told me I could find out more about the subject and participate in the discussion about him and the controvercial subject matter.

I know some have no interest but I see many articles and hope they all expand the human knowledge avialable. AChan

And you reverted the redirect of this article as one of your first actions as a new editor. It's great to have so many colleagues in real life interested in the same controversial article. Let's hope some semblance of neutrality can survive. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article protection

I've (again) protected this page. It was always going to happen sooner or later. -- Longhair 11:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willfully disruptive editing

I can see there is now a concerted campaign by POV editors to ram this article down everyones throat. Since it is self evident that three editors are collaborating to trap me into WP:3RR I'll sit back and let them hack away at this article to see whether they can construct something credible. I'll check the article tomorrow to confirm it references Optima and GTS to ensure it is balanced. I see dirty politics are not limited to student unions. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

At this stage, I cannot see any constructive outcome as long as they continue their current attitude. Xtra 11:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested to those who wish to see a Dean McVeigh article exist work their article over in private namespace, here. If they can write a genuine article which meets all criteria for inclusion, let them be. I think keeping this redirect protected for now is a good idea going on past article history. -- Longhair 12:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Redirect

Anyone with objections to the McVeigh article should discuss them here. The article as it stands is genuine, about notable subject matter. Does anyone have a genuine disagreement about this and if so what particular thing should be deleted or what should be included and why? DarrenRay 14:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I should note Darren that I have no objection to the redirect concluding now. I think he is a notable enough subject. Considerable information has been deleted about him that is notable in the attempt to merge it into the student unions article. I propose the redirect be lifted and the McVeigh article be restored as no one has even participated in changes they wanted or said they wanted. --2006BC 05:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double Redirect

The article currently points to Melbourne University student unions by way of double redirect. Is there any objection to me changing it to a one hop redirect to Melbourne University student unions? --kingboyk 07:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're an admin go ahead, otherwise you won't be able to since it is protected. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm an admin. I'll check back tommorow and see what the opinion is. --kingboyk 08:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
At this point I'd say it is safe as naming confusion was the reason for the most recent change in name of the student unions article and there is no disagreement with the revised title. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. --kingboyk 09:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Double redirect fixed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)