Talk:Kellerberrin, Western Australia

2009 comment

Why is this page being protected? Anyone visiting Kellerberrin's main street would agree that it is full of pot-holes and there is a distinct lack of footpaths.

In comparison to other neighbouring towns the facilites in Kellerberrin are woeful.

As for the assertion that the shire prefers to sped it's money on booze-ups this is verifiable in the councils own minutes dated 25th November 2008 Council Minutes 25th November 2008. where it states quite clearly that $45,120.20 was spent on centenial celebration for invited guests. A simple mathematical calculation proves that this represents $52 per person based upon the 2006 ABS population statistics.

My assertion is that rather than this being a unproven "derogatory rant" it is in fact a verifiable commentary from one that knows the area and region very well.

The fact that this page has been protected without providing proof that my assertions are incorrect simply demonstrated that the people editing my comments have an aversion to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellerfella (talk • contribs) 01:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's right. We don't care about the truth: we care about neutrality and verifiability. The first sentence of our verifiability policy is

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

That's how we play this game, and we're under no obligation to change the rules just to give you a soapbox to preach from. Hesperian 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

O.K and so what part of the November 25th council minutes are you not able to verify????

Perhaps if I suggest to you that you make an effort to read those minutes and then verify that you are able to verify that those minutes have in fact been published and then whip out your counting tool and divide 45,120.20 by the population figures you will be able to verify that the information provided is in fact verifiable even by the most unintelligent of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellerfella (talk • contribs) 02:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on those minutes I am unable to verify the following assertions:

• "Many travellers passing through the town refer to it as Kellerboring due to the absence of basic community facilities."
• "The town itself is noted throughout the region for its lack of footpaths, pot-holed main street and third world street lighting."
• "Undeterred the shire council prefers to spend their revenue on elitist centenary booze-ups costing $45,126.20 at the expense of torn shade sails in the childrens playground.Council Minutes 25th November 2008"
  • Specifically, those minutes do not verify that the $45000 was spent on a "booze-up"; on the contrary they indicate that the sum was spent on costs associated with a centenary celebration, including the cost of replacing old carpets and purchasing tables and chairs; the minutes also do not verify that the centenary celebration was "elitist"; and although they verify that funding originally intended for the shade sails was reallocated to cover a deficit in centenary funding, it also indicates that this funding was originally intended for replacing the shade sails with a hard cover, and that although replacement would no longer go ahead, repair of the shade sails ought to proceed.
• "According to the 2006 ABS population figures this a whopping $52 entertainment expenditure for every man, woman and child living in the town."
  • Neither the 2006 ABS population figures nor the council minutes can be used to verify that $52 is "whopping".
• "As such it is apparent that the provision of practical amenities such as parks and playgrounds for Kellerberrin residents are of lesser priority than wining and dining Perth based VIP's, National and Liberal party M.P's and former residents now living in more salubrious locations."
• "These assertions are self evident when visiting one of Kellerberrin's major tourist attractions which is named centennial park."
• "This park is now fondly referred to by locals as the "Crystal Gardens" for the amount of broken glass that has been abandoned around its grass-less expanse, providing a less than scenic extravaganza for travelers passing through on the Prospector and Avonlink trains."

In summary, there isn't a single sentence in your derogatory rant that is verifiable. If you have a gripe with council, why don't you start a blog or something?

<< * "Many travellers passing through the town refer to it as Kellerboring due to the absence of basic community facilities." >>

Then I suggest that you talk to people that live there!! The term was invented by a nurse from NSW who worked at the hospital for some years.

<< * "The town itself is noted throughout the region for its lack of footpaths, pot-holed main street and third world street lighting." >> A common observation verifiable by simply visitng the palce!! Should I upload you a photograph?

<< Specifically, those minutes do not verify that the $45000 was spent on a "booze-up"; on the contrary they indicate that the sum was spent on costs associated with a centenary celebration, including the cost of replacing old carpets and purchasing tables and chairs; >>> Having obviously read the minutes did you deliberately forget to mention those cases of specially labelled wine?

<< the minutes also do not verify that the centenary celebration was "elitist" >>> How else would you describe the selective invitations?

<<< and although they verify that funding originally intended for the shade sails was reallocated to cover a deficit in centenary funding, it also indicates that this funding was originally intended for replacing the shade sails with a hard cover, and that although replacement would no longer go ahead, repair of the shade sails ought to proceed. >>> In other words they blew the budget on the booze-up!!!

<< ** Neither the 2006 ABS population figures nor the council minutes can be used to verify that $52 is "whopping". >> Are you able to provide entertainment expense from other Australian local government authorities to prove that this expenditure is not "whopping"? Or are we to believe it isn't whopping just on your say so?

Oh, and you forgot to verify that the so called centennial celebrations was attended by both Brendan Grylls and Wilson Tuckey. Was that a selective ommission or did it simply not suit your intentions in responding.

Quite frankly, it is most unfortunate when people choose to selectively ignore verifiable information, the common observation of visitors and accurate feedback and dismiss it as a "derogative rant" simply because it upsets your delicate social sensibilites?

In summmary I can only conclude that you agree with the wastage of government monies and think that adults swilling from specially labelled bottle of wine at taxpayers expense whilst little children play in a glass strewn park in the blazing sun, putting them at an increased risk of skin cancer is quite acceptable!!!!

End of Discussion!!!

Sounds like most metro Perth city councils actually. Orderinchaos 13:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

.

What part of

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

are you unable to comprehend? Hesperian 04:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What part of End of Discussion!!! are you unable to comprehend?

The bit where you ask me six questions immediately beforehand. Oh, and the bit where you seem to think you can get in the last word and then make the discussion end merely by declaring it ended. Really, the only effective way for you to end this discussion is to stop reading it and go do something else. Hesperian 05:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahaha... Lovely stuff!! I take it Hesperian that an intelligent person such as yourself can see the irony of you accusing me of wanting to have the "last word" whilst at the same time struggling to have the "last word" yourself????

Seriously though: I had a message that my posts had been banned for 48 hours because I had been a "VERY BAD" poster by "harrassing" another user. Now..... given that you are the Wikipedia expert, could you please explain that by-law to me and provide "verifiable" published proof rather than the subjective psuedo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo that my edits were deleted upon???

Oh...and please... I read your message. And given that I am now wising up very quickly, would like to say this: I certainly have no intention of "lasting long around here" in any case!!! And given that it would be probably far more rewarding to discuss factual community services with a bunch of Galahs than some puffed intellectual wikipedia snobs the fact remain that broken glass remains strewed upon a grassless expance of parkland and that the shade-sails referred to in your earlier reply, six months later remain unreplaced!

Oh, and BTW. The local Aborigines refer to Kellerberrin Hill (in their language) as "Keela" and not "Killa", hence the name Keelerberrin, and so quite clearly the information obtained from your "previously published" sources are "verifiably" misleading!!

. .

As interesting as it all is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia - something you can verify "with your own eyes" is subjective, it's not a reliable published source and doesn't help Wikipedia's aim to become a credible work. It may all be true, but verifiability and truth are different concepts. Certainly if you had a lot of articles about this in the local paper (eg the Merredin Wheatbelt Mercury) it might make for something interesting, but it sounds to me like the same sort of stuff that goes on at a fair few councils. The one north of me got sacked and there was a huge report into it, there was dodgy stuff going on at the one northeast of me, and a councillor at my own one had to resign over CCC investigations into alleged vote-rigging.

If you want to effect change and get something done about it, I strongly suggest starting a blog on something like Wordpress and signing it up with Technorati and other agglomeration sites where people can find your comments. Having a space that is truly your own where local people can comment and raise issues and hold officials to account is democracy at work and you would be amazed who reads them, e.g. a lot of bored journalists at places like the Sunday Times and the West looking for a story on a quiet day. I've been on national radio and been quoted in a newspaper of record as a result of my online activities.

Can't help you much beyond the above, just that it may be more worth your while than fighting a battle which is already lost - Hesperian is entirely correct in his interpretation of Wikipedia policy and he has written many credible articles about places in Western Australia. It's certainly not about pushing a pro-council agenda - and if you can find reliable sources which meen WP:RS and WP:V which demonstrate your claims, then by all means do that. But keep the language to what is appropriate for a Wikipedia audience - i.e. we do not make claims about "whopping" amounts or make value judgements, we state the facts and let them tell the story for us. Orderinchaos 14:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Their family name was English

... Their family name was English...

Is that English people or English (surname)? If the latter, and the road was called "English Road", this might be better:

Between 1890 to 1910 settlers from Ireland, with the surname "English", settled in the area of Kellerberrin and Wittem. English Road was named after this them.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kellerberrin, Western Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318082458/https://www.cbh.com.au/media/120302/cbh%20receival%20sites%20-%20contact%20details.pdf to https://www.cbh.com.au/media/120302/cbh%20receival%20sites%20-%20contact%20details.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.transwa.wa.gov.au/Portals/21/Uploaded_docs/2930-200-006_-_AvonLink_Timetable.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.transwa.wa.gov.au/Portals/21/Uploaded_docs/2930-200-007_-_Prospector_Timetable.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)