Talk:Peter Batchelor

message: Deleting sourced material is a bad style, but the paragraph about the 1985 Election controversy is not sourced. Please provide sources and formulate the fact in a neutral manner. abakharev 01:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding sourced material can still be biased. Batchelor is a well-known minister with a long career. This article skims over his entire political career and goes into more detail about an accusation of involvement in some otherwise completely forgotten incident from 1985. This is utterly biased against Batchelor. If this factoid goes in (and I have my doubts that it should at all), it needs to be when this article is much, much longer. Ambi 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion is not the way to balance article. If the article is unbalanced lets add more facts for the oposite view. Than the other party can add facts for their view etc. Eventually the article would be comprehensive. Deletion lead us to nowhere. abakharev 01:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't got the time. I'm pretty busy at the moment with university and family commitments, and I simply haven't got the two or three weeks of solid research time (the time it has taken me to do a proper treatment of state ministers in the past) that it would take to do this article properly. I also don't know that I find Batchelor interesting enough to spend all that time researching his life. So with that in mind, I'll have to settle for keeping this article neutral - which means removing factoids from 1985 until someone bothers to write the rest of the article. Ambi 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about the 1985 issue but I know it was very big news. DarrenRay 06:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: I am about to remove the following paragraph. While I personally agree with the sentiment, it contains clumsy grammar and is POV (espeically the line 'will ensure a bad future for all Victorians'). Prehaps a paragraph on this issue is warranted, but it needs a rewrite first.
Unfortunately, Peter Batchelor has been met with fierce critisism following the release of the 'Transport and Liveability Statement'. The Public Transport Users Association slammed what was offered and have called for his resignation. The largest environmental campaign in Melbourne had started. The problem being that a lack of rail extensions, continued construction of freeways and the poor privately owned tram and train network in Melbourne will ensure a bad future for all Victorians.
Teiresias84 13:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transport and Liveability

message: :Image:Minister fss signage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Minister fss signage.jpg