Talk:Barton Deakin

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barton Deakin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130420191903/http://www.bartondeakin.com.au/Canberra/Grahame_Morris.html to http://bartondeakin.com.au/Canberra/Grahame_Morris.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

December 7 removal of information from the "controversies" section

I see the argument that User:Freeinformationforthepeople88 makes in their edit summary, but I think that the information should stay on the page per WP:NPOV. The majority of the article consists of descriptions of employees of the firm, so the argument that information about its staff isn't relevant content for the company page seems like it's being applied only when that content reflects poorly on the firm; comments made by its senior executives do seem relevant within the scope "controversies involving the firm", especially given the nature of its work in the political sphere.

I'm of course welcome to other arguments as to why the content should be removed, however.

CogitoErgoSum14 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Page protected - edit war

As there's been just a bit of a edit-war on this page I have reverted it (checking to be sure that all the material in question was reliably sourced per WP:BLP) to the pre-edit war status and protected the page from editing for 24 hours. Please discuss the contested content here and come to a consensus as to whether or not it should be included.

Also, JoePatelli33, Freeinformationforthepeople88, Australianlobbyistwatcher20, please bear in mind Wikipedia's policies about conflict-of-interest editing and the use of multiple accounts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)