Jump to content

Talk:David Leyonhjelm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coatrack article and bias

[edit]

This article is full of bias against Leyonhjelm and fails to give a truthful impression of him. It has been created by editors who don't like him purely to make him look bad which is against policy. It contains ridiculous ephemeral crap; most of it should be deleted here unless a secondary source says it had some long term significance.Merphee (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors need to be aware that is a replay by Merphee of language that has been written about his edits on Emma Husar. To Merphee, I say please stop attacking other editors. If you have specific aspects of this article you wish to discuss, please do so. Sweeping statements such as "This article is full of bias" are pointless. Bias is everywhere. We all simply need to recognise our own biases and work to prevent them influencing our editing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now now HiLo, as you know you have already been warned for Wikipedia:Harassment and following me around and commenting on my talk page when I asked you many times to stop and an administrator asked you to stop. So have you any responses to my points above relating to content? The article is full to the brim of trivial crap that does not meet the policy for bios of living persons. That is my point. HiLO you are the only one making the personal attacks. Please focus on content. Again any response to my points? Otherwise I plan to delete some of this entirely trivial shit designed only to make the man look bad.Merphee (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Warned" by who? You? It's hardly following you around if we have an interest in the articles of Australian members of parliament. It's pretty clear you're the one being confrontational. An administrator advised them that it was a matter better suited for the article page instead of your user talk page, not that they shouldn't have said what they've said. If you delete "trivial crap" that everyone else is in favour of keeping, you would be directly contravening policy. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy. Ok HiLo was warned to stop posting comments on my talk page after being asked by me, to please stop doing so several times. HiLo was warned by an administrator here [1].Merphee (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does this section for example "During the 2016 Australian federal election campaign, Leyonhjelm attracted criticism after he suggested women's sport was not "interesting enough" to receive government funding" be noteworthy enough to be included?Merphee (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was referring to with the talk page. Ask Drmies yourself if you want, I guarantee they haven't signed on to what you're saying.
His political positions relate to his role as a parliamentarian. Can you show us any consensus precedent for what is notable enough to be included then? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is some one off stupid comment he made on twitter consistent with WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTNEWS? It was also reported in one single brief news story. We need to be careful with how we deal with bios on living persons even those editors may not like. This section seems not to comply with any of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. Onetwothreeip you said "His political positions relate to his role as a parliamentarian" I don't know what you mean or how that addresses policy concerns I am identifying. Can you please elaborate a little further?Merphee (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change the signature on my comment for the second time? I have a user page but again you've changed it so that it's a red link to a page that isn't my user page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what the hell are you personally accusing me of now instead of focusing on content. Please show me exactly what your accusation is about because I honestly have no idea.Merphee (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked my last edit. The only thing I did was select and copy your editor name when I replied to you.Merphee (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[2]
[3]
You certainly didn't paste my user name when you replied to me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I copied and pasted your editor name in this sentence "Onetwothreeip you said "His political positions relate to his role as a parliamentarian" I don't know what you mean or how that addresses policy concerns I am identifying. Can you please elaborate a little further?" There was no malice I can assure you. Why the hell would I do that purposely anyway? If it was my error please accept my apology and move on because you are not discussing content here. Could you possibly speak to my questions on policy and how you justify including a stupid comment he made on twitter being consistent with WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTNEWS? It was also reported in one single brief news story.Merphee (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

$55,000 in donations from tobacco company

[edit]

This staemnent was jusyt out there with no context at all "Leyonhjelm has accepted $55,000 in donations from tobacco company Philip Morris" I added "but has denied his acceptance of donations influenced his push for a senate inquiry into illegal tobacco" as per the source. Let's discuss it here.Merphee (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even add context, it just tries to mitigate that he received a donation from a large tobacco firm. Of course he's going to deny his acceptance of donations has influenced him to do anything. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to adding some context to this because I agree that out there on its own this looks a bit odd, and people can make up their own minds on the credibility of a Leyonhjelm denial about it. However, this description (in suggesting that the controversy related to his stance on the illegal tobacco inquiry) misrepresents the issue considering his opposition to plain packaging, strong smoking advocacy, among other things. It's not like he's not outspoken about his views on cigarette issues: if we're going to go there we may as well articulate them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I opened this post to avoid edit warring a point lost on onetwothreeip a supposed experienced editor. At least we are agreed The Drover's Wife about the "out there on there own" comment about his acceptance of the donation. I am positive most if not all uninvolved editors would also see that you can't just leave that kind of statement with no context out in the open. It can only be negatively interpreted by readers. But onetwothreeip doesn't see that. Instead onetwothreeip just reverted me 3 times and I won't revert again as I do not want to edit war as I said. Onetwothreeip should have known about the 3 revert rule given their supposed experience. I added the other source which addressed this statement in the article better. But again onetwothreeip just deleted that source too. They could have at least left that there. I mean I compromise constantly. What can we put in there then The drovers Wife? Personally I don't like the man but I don't like articles leaving open statements like that without context and obviously designed to make the politician look bad.Merphee (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for adding more context and more encyclopaedic information generally, your edit did not do that. I actually reported someone on the three revert rule earlier today, as it happens, funny you mention it. Generally we don't do "X does something bad but here's what they have to say about it". I've asked before and I didn't get a response as to what should actually be included, rather than just pleading to keep up what has been contested by others, so without this becoming about me, what sort of details do you want to add? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I've never pointed to how experienced I am, no idea where that comes from. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
onetwothreeip are you open to including other sources in that raw statement in the article about him accepting $55 000 donation? There is nothing illegal about and it can only be interpreted negatively as you very well know. I also find your extremely sarcastic and patronising comment quite telling "Politician denies donations influence them, stop everything, this deserves to make its way to the Main Page! Wikipedia really needs to break this story" You obviously hate the man deeply but you can't use Wikipedia to attack him like that. It's called libel. That's why reliable sources use context and include statements from the individual. Editors should always remain neutral and free from POV with their editing and rely only on policy.Merphee (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should retain the sentence about the donations and describe his views/actions in this area, so readers can make up their own minds. He's clearly proudly outspoken in this area - almost unique for a modern Australian MP - so it's a noteworthy view of his anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking him by saying that he has accepted donations that he doesn't deny? That's a pretty loony basis to accuse me of libel for, even if it was me that wrote it, which it wasn't. I'm certainly guilty of the sarcastic edit summary but I've done and said nothing to indicate I "hate the man deeply". As far as donations go, taking them from tobacco companies is pretty noteworthy for Australian politics. There is plenty about Leyonhjelm's peculiar views that can be used as a context for talking about his policy positions on cigarettes, we don't need to say he denied being influenced by donations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're on a similar page here: someone just needs to write two or three sentences fleshing out his policy positions/actions on cigarettes and smoking. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that The Drovers Wife. But I don't agree with onetwothreeip's approach of just leaving that raw statement just sitting out there without context and it only being able to be interpreted by readers one way and to make him look bad. That has been my gripe with this editor's point of view and approach.Merphee (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the interpretation that you object to? Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of two possible reasons Philip Morris would support Leyonhjelm. Either they they think he will support them in return, or they like the colour of his hair. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this exchange is missing the point. We don't get into the reasons why Phillip Morris support Leyonhjelm. We can state that they do - and we can state his positions on smoking issues - but all of this stuff about interpreting his motives is for the reader. Whether he supports smoking issues because they fund him or whether they fund him because he supports smoking issues is neither here nor there as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. Hence my pathetic attempt at humour. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't we achieved consensus yesterday The Drover's Wife after your suggestion which seemed sensible?Merphee (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen no consensus on any of your views where they start off different from those of others. You seem to be pretty much alone in your views here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's your problem HiLo48? All you do on here is belittle and harass and attack other editors that don't share your point of view and there seems to be quite a few just looking through your talk page. I again can only direct you to Wikipedia:Civility and I seriously suggest you have a really good read of this policy. I notice you've already been blocked for a month for personal attacks before. I'd suggest focusing on content like we are told to do. The consensus achieved was yesterday and was based on The Drovers Wife's reasonable suggestion as can easily be seen above. You should try compromising sometimes too. That's what editors do here.Merphee (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by everything I wrote in that post. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Merphee: I think you're the one being uncivil. If you want to exchange policy links, I recommend WP:Disruptive and you may be blocked yourself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get blocked for a month for compromising. You do for a constant focus away from discussing content and instead abuse, belittle and demean other editors. That's why HiLo48 was blocked for a month. How about you too try at least to just focus on content like we are told to do. Not everyone needs to agree with each other but that's what makes Wikipedia so great. Compromise is important.Merphee (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In your second post in this Section you roundly attacked another editor. Perhaps that set the tone for the thread. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Content. Focus on content. And stop the personal crap. It's getting really boring.Merphee (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can everyone knock off the squabbling and focus on coming up with some actual language? The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Merphee (and others) more than once what sort of context they want to include. All I get is the same that we've heard over and over again. I'd still like to get an answer but otherwise it seems there's nothing more to do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed The Drover's Wife. Your suggestion was "someone just needs to write two or three sentences fleshing out his policy positions/actions on cigarettes and smoking" and is reasonable. Will do that tonight. Onetwothreeip are you saying you don't agree with this approach now? There is definitely something more to be done. We can't just have that statement sitting there without context. That's been the whole point here.Merphee (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can just have that statement sitting there alone. Readers can draw their own conclusions. I have successfully done so. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of being so brief about this: Leyonhjelm's smoking advocacy is notable as a political view anyway and it's obviously relevant if we're going to mention the tobacco industry's donations to him. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I guess it would help readers not so aware of Leyonhjelm's unusual political positions. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surely everything could be expanded on, but Merphee has repeatedly said that leaving what is there about smoking is a breach of Wikipedia policy, which is untrue. I'm still yet to hear what details Merphee or anybody wants to include. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again for the third time onetwothreeip, it is The Drover's Wife comments that I agreed with and HiLo48 agreed with. I apologise for quoting it again so onetwothreeip clearly sees the point. "I think we're on a similar page here: someone just needs to write two or three sentences fleshing out his policy positions/actions on cigarettes and smoking". It has nothing to do with what I want to include. It is The Drover's Wife's suggestion that was agreed upon and consensus formed.Merphee (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Drover's Wife in that comment was agreeing with me, clearly. You've never described on this talk page what you wanted added, you just kept attacking people personally and then saying they should focus on content. I've already written more on Leyonhjelm's positions on tobacco. The question asking you what you think should be added has not expired. If there is nothing more you want to include then I don't see why you continue to make comments. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look onetwothreeip, it is obvious you are trying to 'set me up' for disruptive editing. Again for the last time I agreed with The Drover's Wife that we should just "write two or three sentences fleshing out his policy positions/actions on cigarettes and smoking" Do you agree with The Drover's Wife? When I have a chance I may offer something to put in there or someone else could. It was not my suggestion. I just agreed with it as HiLO48 did. Do you agree? I did not edit war. I accepted consensus. I compromised. I answered directly to The Driver's Wife's suggestion. I cannot be any clearer and refuse to continue wasting my time discussing it with you as you just ignore the straight up question anyway.Merphee (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed well before you did, as I've said before. I've already added a sentence there regarding his position on cigarettes. Tell us what more you'd like to see added, or don't. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok yep whatever you say onetwothreeip. Can we move on now.Merphee (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reverted edit

[edit]

User:Onetwothreeip, why did you revert my edit about Leyonhjelm's slut-shaming?--Exjerusalemite (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got a paragraph on the incident between Leyonhjelm and Hanson-Young. Most of what you wrote was already written, but certainly you can expand on the paragraph we have there, and make another paragraph if necessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Leyonhjelm&oldid=1247661211"