Talk:Tecoma, Victoria

message: It says an Aldi is coming, I thought is was a Coles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supt. of Printing (talk • contribs) 04:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supermarket 

message: Please change:
According to McDonald's Australia spokeswoman Skye Oxenham-Lupul, "It’s a sad state of affairs when the promises made publicly by community organisers that protests will be peaceful, free from verbal abuse, threats of physical violence and intimidation and not involving children or animals have proven to be empty".[5] 
To:
Marketing expert Dean Wilkie, from the Australian School of Business at the University of New South Wales told BBC News, "McDonald's stresses this idea of helping the local community as one of its core values, but the fact that they are going against the people of Tecoma in such a manner is to me inconsistent with what they say their cores values are. It creates a lack of credibility."
McDonald's told BBC News: "We have followed due process every step of the way to build a family restaurant on a highway that houses a number of food and service outlets. The area is appropriately zoned, we have an approved planning permit and we are moving forward.
Because:
The first statement was from an old article that has been discredited.  </<ref></<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24364204ref>ref>
The BBC article is more credible and current, just published last week ad it is the BBC, one of the most respected news organisations in the world.
Katealtizer (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to be a reasonable edit request, but could you also provide a link to the BBC article/articles to use as a reference?     Djapa Owen (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Partly done:. @Djapa84: she did provide a link to it, but it's hidden inside ref tags. The BBC source is already used in the article, in fact (FN4). @Katealtizer: I've removed the first statement, but not added the replacement. The point is that both of these are judgemental commentary rather than information, and therefore go against the need for a neutral point of view. I have also copy edited the whole section, which had a number of problems of presentation. By the way, the old source is still used for several other things in the article, and you haven't provided any reference to show that it's discredited. --Stfg (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 7 October 2013 

message: Please change 
As of October 2013, the standoff is still ongoing, 
to
As of October 2014, the standoff is still ongoing,
Nicholas Valentine (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: – but can you provide a reference? a recent mention of the standoff in a local newspaper would do. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2014 

message: The entire section relating to McDonald's is incredibly biased, particularly as the issue is contentious, and the legitimacy of notion that 9/10 locals didn't want the restaurant has been disputed by many. There is no need to refer to the specifics of the court details.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Rayon (talk • contribs) 06:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased McDonald's Section 

message: I would like to add a photo I took of the Tecoma shops in the infobox, as there is currently no photo of Tecoma.
 NatoV (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023 

message: Just to check if the semi-protection of the article is still needed? It's been many years since the controversy and it's not a current topic (at least of which I'm aware). Takerlamar (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection