Talk:University of Melbourne student organisations

message: OK. let's discuss this. Quinobi 10:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:July 2005 

message: *Critics argue they ought to be currently focused on providing the services they are legally obliged to provide.
*Many of these operations lose considerable sums of money, particular one called the U-Bar, a bar which lost $10,000 per trading week until it was closed in 2002. An internal union report credited the losses to staff theft and excessive staff rostering.
* It is estimated that as much as $1 million per annum is stolen from the Union by its management and left-wing officials.
* Frequently Socialist Left aligned candidates form close association withe extreme left candidates, including carnal relations.
* It is understood as few as 5% of students would voluntarily join a left-wing dominated union, even with a drastically reduced fee.
*On February 6, 2004 the Union was placed into liquidation at the request of students aligned with the Socialist Left by the Supreme Court of Victoria.
What are the sources for these assertions? -Willmcw 09:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
:They're not the only problems with that version - see above for a more complete list. However, the issue appears to be moot for the moment - while AngryTeddy continues to create a new account every day and pretend they're different people (as confirmed by IP evidence), the socks can be shot on sight. If he decides to play by the rules and stick to one account, then we can revisit this issue. Ambi 12:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced assertions 

message: *Of the $12 million budget of the student union, less than $1 million goes towards the funding of Union Departments, which includes funding Farrago, the Women's Department and the Queer Department. In 2005, this also includes funds set aside for possible payment for NUS affiliation fees.
If this page is biased, no-one will take it seriously. - 210.49.162.195 11:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, anon - what is surprising about this? Frankly, I'm surprised that the total is this high - if this is the case, the departments get a quite larger portion than those at ANU. Ambi 23:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Union Departments include funding for Farrago, the Academic Advice Unit, Clubs and Socities, and the staff costs relating to them. ANU is a very small uni, so I'm not surprised that the ratio is different.Theusualsuspect 00:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: DarrenRay has asked for a pointer to guidance on the use of clearly (and admittedly) biased external links. Points 3 and 4 of Wikipedia:External links are relevant here.
:3 On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first.
:4 Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.
See also point 9 in "links to normally void": 
:9 A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.
However, point 1 in the same section could lean towards including it, if the article really includes "multiple points of view", in which case, we should probably have links representing the other points of view.
Does that help you at all? Stevage 23:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I think you're misinterpreting the guidelines. The idea is for the range of POV links (if necessary) to be balanced. Having only one is obviously not balanced - and not being able to find an opposing one is hardly an excuse! As to linking to blogs - well, yes, you can link to blogs. With respect, isn't musulies.com effectively a blog? In any case, it's your website, so according to that other guideline (#9), it's probably better you didn't put it there. I'll leave it up to your demonstration of good faith whether you remove it or not. Just remember, we're here to write a neutral, balanced encyclopadia. Stevage 23:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Careful, Crikey might have the same to say about your blog :) Anyway, we now have two opposing views, which is good. A third, neutral article would be even better. Note that I've moved both links to the relevant section, as they only refer to the liquidation. Maybe we should make an article just on that event? It's certainly notable. Stevage 13:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoops, I take that back, the MU link isn't even relevant. Anyone have a better one? Should contain a criticism at least as impassioned as DR's defence :) Stevage 13:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External POV links

message: This guy is not notable other than via a limited connection with MUSU liquidation. Current McVeigh article is predominantly focussed on POV issues and needs to be cut down and cleaned up.
Bottom line is that even if every assertion in the article is true (although I'm not suggesting that), it still seems that this would not be noteworthy of a distinct article given the number of minor businessmen of dubious intent in the world. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that it be deleted rather than added to an already polarised and overflowing article. That McVeigh is mentioned as the liquidator is more than enough. Theusualsuspect 06:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There's just been a discussion about deleting/merging the article so I doubt we should take another vote on that. There was no consensus to do delete/merge. I would strongly oppose any merger/deletion of the article as it is clear that Dean McVeigh is sufficiently notable, and is involved as the central figure in the MUSU Liquidation, aside from his other activities. Do a search on him in the main newspaper archives and on Google etc and the issue of his notability is removed beyond doubt. DarrenRay 07:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get more hits searching for my own name so this is not sufficient justification for notability. Unfortunately the opinion of those directly involved in legal issues has to be weighed up against those with no vested interest who are just looking for even handed articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Dean McVeigh 

message: The content of MU Student Union Limited could form a section of this article.  There appears no justification for a break away article.  The article was created by User:DarrenRay on 4 March.--A  Y  Arktos 20:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a merge. It seems to be mainly used to "name" MUSUL staff members. The business itself is small enough to not be noteworthy.Theusualsuspect 22:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But entirely non-notable. At best, it too will end up being absorbed into a larger article. Resistance is futile. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed per the section I added below before seeing this comment. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger from MU Student Union Limited 

message: This article has been turned into a vehicle for attacking former officers of MUSU. An anoymous/pseudonymous editor has imposed a very strong POV on the area dealing with MUSU's liquidation.
S/he has also unilaterally merged Dean McVeigh's article with a strong POV twist into this one.
This is little more than an attack page, it's a mess, it is riddled with error. Is anyone actually interested in collaborating and improving the article in a way that we can all be pleased with? Am keen to do that.
There's also the issue of whether articles about MU Student Union Ltd, University of Melbourne Student Union and Melbourne University Student Union should be merged. I don't mind about that but perhaps that should be resolved first before addressing the massive bias and error in these articles. DarrenRay 22:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking for myself, I am very keen for a factual history of the MUSU to be established on this page. There are currently several different biases competing in the article. Before we worry about removing non-NPOV material, can I suggest we first assemble all the relevant facts into the article, then worry about getting them in balance? Clearly, the examples of what each president did or didn't do have been cherrypicked to present a particular case. Let's try and correct that by adding more material, not removing it. There are also a number of unsubstantiated claims - could the UBar possibly lose $10,000 a week? It seems unlikely, and certainly needs a source. Stevage 23:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Error and Bias

message: Ideally all these bits and pieces of articles should be merged into one article called University of Melbourne student services since they have, and will, come and go. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article provides the most history which should make it easier to merge the other articles into this one. I will continue to be WP:BOLD. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've merged MUSUL and Farrago and reworked the intro a bit. I'm inclined to think the UMSU article may be better off being separate due to its size with a stub in this one and a link to the main article. Then again the UMSU article is mostly a large chunk of history which can be deleted/merged to this article and a long vanity list of non-notable office bearers. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge the lot 

message: ...and so on, has anybody stopped to think "are these events and people notable"? Fellow admin User_talk:2006BC#Garglebutt_3RR immediately questioned notability of e.g. McVeigh, and so did I. I'd hate to see you folks drag each other into blocks for 3RR and other transgressions only to find that the article involved gets nominated for deletion. --kingboyk 09:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article survived AFD but has been POV pretty much from the start which is what some of us have been trying to address by playing down one liquidators importance, with a compromise of retaining some of the article in the MU student services article. I have no skin in this other than trying to address POV articles that are potentially libelous for WP. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Darren, please stop accusing people of being "anonymous/pseudonymous". On Wikipedia, it's like accusing people of being bipeds. We have a right (and many different reasons for it) to edit "pseudonymously", as you put it, and implying that people who do not declare a real name are trying to insert some POV is unjustified and unreasonable. See wikipedia:username. Thanks. Stevage 16:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before you get too deep into revert wars 

message: 1) This article is self-evidently a mess
:It's just been merged from several different articles, and had an influx of new editors. It's a work in progress. Not beyond help. Stevage 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. What's wrong with "Melbourne University Student Union", with the lead specifying that there have been various official names for effectively the same body?Stevage 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Which political causes? I don't think there's only one single bias at play here. You would do well to specify the individual paragraphs, and what the exact bias is here. Unfortunately "the material on the MUSU Liquidation is self-evidently libellous." is too vague to be actionable. Stevage 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Since you have slapped tags all over the article I suggest you do make a list otherwise the tags may be removed. A number of editors have gone to some effort to create a chronological history of student services. Perhaps contributing rather than criticising would improve the article. Note that the article deliberately uses lower case for student services to avoid confusion with any particular body on campus. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Darren, the onus *is* on the person adding the {totallydisputed} tag to make a good faith effort to highlight the specific problems, rather than just saying it's all a mess. A top ten would be a great start. Stevage 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We may need something on Optima and GTS to maintain balance on historical issues with MUSU. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly. Anyone wishing to keep the Optima deal out of this article should be viewed with suspicion. Stevage 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: From experience, I can tell you that rewrites don't solve anything - they just alienate and upset the people who worked on the old article. By all means attempt one in a temporary space, but I suggest that it would be a lot more productive to fix this article. What are the specific problems that would be solved by a rewrite? POV can be fixed on a sentence-by-sentence basis, or by adding new sources or material. Stevage 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to create a draft for comment per the Dean McVeigh draft. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias and Factual Error and Clean up Required

message: *User:DarrenRay offered, in relation to problems with the article at present: "If anyone wishes to get a Top Ten of them, I'll do it".  I think that would be most helpful and constructive.  I think a rewrite, even in a temporary space would just produce an incompatible fork and would be best avoided if at all possible.--A  Y  Arktos 22:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 10 list of problems with this article at present (8 March 2006) 

message: Is the university still an affiliate of NUS since it won't have been able to pay membership dues since 2004? Garglebutt / (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The MUSU article and others have been merged together here to provide a better chronology and reduce the chaff in each individual article at the same time. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a total mess, the University of Melbourne student services is a department of the University Administration and quite different from MUSU/UMSU/MUSUL/UMPA/Sports Union. I don't know if they need their own article each. But I do know that this title is incorrect. 2006BC 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NUS? 

message: User:DarrenRay reverted two paragraphs of factual, NPOV (as far as I can tell) material with no explanation beyond the two letters "rv".
Kindly demonstrate your good faith in working towards achieving a balanced, comprehensive article on this topic by restoring the two paragrahs, or rewording them if appropriate. Thank you. Also, can I strongly recommend that you take the time to read wikipedia:civility. Insensitive behaviour such as reverting the contributions of others is unlikely to gain any sympathy towards your cause.
Regarding your other comment "please don't remove merge proposal, not up to you to do so", I removed the mergeto tag with University of Melbourne because it seemed self-evident. In fact, I seem to recall having made the original split nearly a year ago, because the University of Melbourne article was getting big, and the activities of the student union really had nothing to do with it. I'm not sure what your reasons for merging are, but anynone is within their rights to make a good-faith removal of a merge tag. If you disagree with it, fine, let's discuss it - explain why they should be removed. But can you please leave the confrontational language out of your edit summaries? Stevage 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: DarrenRay didn't take me up on my suggestion to demonstrate that his efforts on this article are in good faith, and chose not to reinstate the material he had reverted. Pity. Stevage 17:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DarrenRay, play nicely please

message: I have changed the inline external links to Wikipedia footnoting. 2006BC has added a 2006 section that needs to be fleshed out and we are missing a 2005 section. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: The article is gradually improving. The title is good. It is being gradually purged of bias but until it is finished the article cannot be said to be neutral or correct. Readers should be warned.--2006BC 07:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However neither of you have given any indication of what is specifically wrong nor made any constructive edits so bye bye tags until you complete the process of identifying your objections specifically. As very inexperienced editors I trust you will defer to the greater experience of other editors about appropriate protocols for editing regardless of the topic. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh and you two agreeing with each other in some charade of consensus is ridiculous. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consult first and you might get a better response. Do you think the article doesn't require cleanup? I would agree in some ways that it is now less biased and has fewer mistakes. But why not ask first. Show some respect for people. You would get more respect that way. --2006BC 07:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A couple of very weak comments that vaguely relate to the cleanup tag and don't have anything to do with the totallydisputed tag. Anyway, it is very apparent you have no positive contributions to make so I won't waste time responding further. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: So, why exactly is this tag here? Can we get rid of it? There is no discussion on this page suggesting sucha  merge, and I can't fathom why it was put there. Stevage 12:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed given there is no support at Talk:University of Melbourne. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[University of Melbourne]]

message: I see there is now a dispute over whether to have tags indicating that DarrenRay and 2006BC are people referred to in this article itself. Before removing them, have a think about why those tag templates were invented in the first place. They exist to warn people about biases that certainly exist for those users. In this case, I was not aware of who 2006BC was.
I have to say, I object to your removal of such tags with a comment "completely unnecessary", whereas you reverted my removal of a merge tag on the article, claiming I had no right. Be consistent at least, yeah? You're starting to cross the lines of acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. Stevage 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Identification of participants in article

message: Ok, this is getting out of hand. DarrenRay just changed this:
"A draft report from auditor PWC had warned in June 2003 that a property deal the Union had entered into with Optima Property Development Group might..."
to this:
"A draft report from an accounting firm which was later revised substantially had warned in June 2003 that a property deal the Union had entered into might..."
citing "not relevant" as the edit summary. This beggars belief. How can the name of the company, with whom a highly controversial $46 million dollar deal was signed - and which is widely referred to as the "Optima property deal" (58 google hits) - not be relevant? How can the name of the auditor not be relevant? I'm loath to play conspiracy games, but what are you getting at here? What are you trying to achieve by removing the names of these two companies from the Wikipedia article? What is going on?
Looking forward to seeing this "openness to discussion" and "willingness to debate" you wrote about on my talk page. Thanks! Stevage 20:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replacement of actual article title references with weasel words is also inappropriate and suggests a POV bias. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You have an interesting definition of curious. ;) Garglebutt / (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV removal of information - please stop

message: Merge history but leave the rest As I noted elsewhere, the history from the other article should probably come over here, but given it is the active body it can probably stand on its own to document the current service with a link from this article. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved some of the leadin history from UMSU and added it into the chronology here but it needs a bit of copyediting. There is also further history around politics in the early 2000s which should come across too. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from University of Melbourne Student Union 

message: The Rug's Galore case had multiple sources in the old Dean McVeigh article. It was deleted by somebody here. I suggest those responsible dig it up. --2006BC 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence in this article provided no indication on its relevance to the MUSU liquidation so I removed it. If there is a similarity in the proceedings then of course it can be readded, with references of course. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess I don't see a huge relevance in this Rug's Galore case. Let's see, the article is about unions. Unions -> MUSU -> Liquidation -> Dean McVeigh -> Rug's Galore? But if it's keeping you happy, let's leave it there for the moment. Stevage 07:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 2006BC added that one. I've tagged with  so we can get clarity as to where this information came from on to ensure it is in context. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rug's Galore case

message: You have numerous double redirects pointing here. It would be nice if you could fix them (and rather more productive than squabbling). --kingboyk 01:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed a lot after the first move but will resist more right now given the article might move again. Where's that redirect bot when you need it? Garglebutt / (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. I had a look at your blog; what a load of defamatory drivel. And you whinge about imbalance on Wikipedia! I'm almost inclined to remove references to it since it is non-notable and apparently irrelevant to this article but it can stay if we get a reference to McVeigh trying to take it down. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: I don't understand lines like this: "The MakeMcVeighPay[6] blog is run by Benjamin Cass, a creditor of MUSU being pursued by McVeigh in connection with the affairs of the Student Union."
A creditor would be someone to whom the Union owed money. Usually, a creditor pursues the liquidator, wanting their money back. It's not the liquidator who pursues the creditor. Is this term misapplied, or is there something going on here that I don't understand? Stevage 10:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not across all the details but I believe some of the uni services were owned by some of these guys and the suggestion by McVeigh is they took more than their fair share from the student union. I'm certain someone else can provide a more accurate description. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, they would not be a creditor. 2006BC, do you want to clarify? Stevage 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will if you like, Cass is owed money by MUSU, that's what makes him a creditor. Separately he is also being sued in a lawsuit practically no one expects to go to trial let alone succeed. Does that clarify? DarrenRay 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, thanks. :) Stevage 16:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creditors?

message: A general request: with the frequent editing that has been going on lately, could you all please respect WP:EDIT? Particularly with so many accusations of violations of NPOV, it's critical that each edit summary is an accurate summary of the changes that were made. Otherwise everyone ends up having to check each and every edit by hand, which is pretty tiresome. Thanks. Stevage 15:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please use edit summaries, guys

message: Recently there is more and more focus on the returning officers of the MUSU elections. Is there a reason for this? The returning officer in 2003 was relevant as there were allegations of a conflict of interest. Is there such a situation in 2006? If so, it should be spelt out, rather than just throwing the word "left" around as if it was synonomyous with "corrupt" or something. Stevage 16:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Returning officers

message: Garglebutt added some material which I have reverted. 
He/she is confused about the blog being referred to so I've deleted that.
I've also deleted a false assertion about McVeigh's lawsuit. Garglebutt should not be using this page as an attack page. Referring to claims in a highly speculative lawsuit before it ever reaches trial - which it won't - is defamatory and wrong. Garglebutt is clearly trying to return to a POV edit war and that's very unfortunate. --DarrenRay 00:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was quoting verbatim from a newspaper article. The previous info was out of context and an attempt to criticise McVeigh by making statements out of context. Let's be realistic boys, you have pending legal action against you regardless of whether the allegations end up being true or not. Removing those facts from the article is vandalism. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're making a number of claims there - do you have any sources for them? So far, we have The Age on one side, and a polemical (I hope you don't mind my use of that term - permission to replace it if you like) weblog on the other. Which is more reliable? What do you mean by "the lawsuit was a joke, the Master said so"? Stevage 21:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garglebutt's alleged defamation and error 

message: The Union Players theatre group needs to be merged into this page -- all other prominent theatre groups are present, and previous student theatre group pages such as Throwback Players was successfully merged into this one. I plan to merge it in later this week -- but will give people a few days to post any objections they may have. Australian Matt (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatre Merger proposal 

message: The page Union Players was merged into this article and this article seems to imply that the Union Players were affiliated with Melbourne University or were one of it's student organisations. This is incorrect, the only direct connection was that fact that the group did a play that was a satire of the Melbourne University Student Union and perhaps some of the members of that theatre group were formerly involved with MUSU. See www.unionplayers.org for more info. Master z0b (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - will remove Union Players from the page. Australian Matt (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union Players 

message: I have done the merge, but it needs some cleanup. --Bduke (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to "University of Melbourne Student Union"