Talk:Robert Hill (Australian politician)

message: Hi,
Who moved this from 'Robert Murray Hill' to 'Robert Hill (Australian politician)', and why doesn't it show up in the page history?
I also just created Robert Robin Hill, so he should probably become Robert Hill (British biophysicist).
--xoddam 05:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I moved the page from Robert Hill (Australian ambassador) to Robert Hill (diplomat) because he is a Permanent Representative to the United Nations, not an Ambassador to the UN.  Please see Permanent Representative for an explanation. Thanks.--«JavierMC»|Talk 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian(Diplomat) move 

message: He's not the Perm Rep any more; that's Gary Quinlan - .
In July 2009 he was appointed to head the Australian Carbon Trust - . --  JackofOz (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started to update the article, but the rotten templates have defeated me.  I mean, how the hell do you stop them saying "incumbent" when the person is no longer the incumbent?  It's far from obvious to me.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. You need to remove the word "incumbent" from the s-box. With the infobox, you need to put in the end date. Please put in the exact end date in the infobox if you have it. Digestible (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of date

message: and  are disputing the following content, with which is derived from this RS
::Prior to his retirement Hill voted in favor of the abortion drug RU486 being legalized. 
I'm not sure what rationale Smokey has expressed as to why this is a good edit (primarily because the edit summaries are lacking).  Drmies OTOH has said you either get consensus for this change, or you get blocked next time you stick this POV pushing factoid in.  I'd like to make a couple of points about this edit summary:
1) Drmies wouldn't be doing the actual blocking, but rest assured that there are a bevy of admins who would block on his behalf.  Smokeyfire, this is Wikipedia's version of the thin blue line, where admins have each others backs.  And as another saying goes, you can't fight city hall.  However Drmies (IMO) is quite reasonable and actually pleasant to interact with, unlike quite a few of his administrator brethren; I suggest that Smokeyfire take advantage of this fact and engage Drmies.  He might be surprised at the results.  
2) I'm not exactly sure what makes this edit POV.  It's a pretty bland statement, the source specifically mentions Hill as supporting the bill (I'm taking a liberty in assuming that this means "voting for") as well as a selct few "senior leaders".  Is it a "factoid", or a trivial bit of information?  Of course it's not.  A vote or public stance related to a contentious topic is not trivial.
Is there really a problem indicating Hill's position on abortion?  I suspect he would be proud of this stance.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Mr Hill whether he is proud of how he voted on Ru486 or ashamed of it, on anyhand he voted for it to the other editors on wikipedia I just wanted that to be added to mp's pages for the sake of just letting either those who support or do not support those mp's, i thought they should be allowed to know where they those politicians stood on RU486. --Smokeyfire (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best way to move forward is to convince others that Hill's stance on abortion/ru486 belongs in the article because it improves the article.  What other positions does Hill take?  Are those included?  Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Smokey, my goal here is to see you shoulder off the bullying you have been subjected to, but you are trying my patience.  Suggest the full edit you wish to make to the article, with the accompanying source.  If no one else responds to your suggestion in a reasonable amount of time, then you may put the edit into the article.  If someone objects, they will have to have a policy based rationale for doing so, and they will have to explain it here.  Don't play games, and do to let people play games with you.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

text: That is a source.  You can't "add" a source.  What is the text that you wish to add to the article that is supported by this source.?Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am asking for is for you to put the EXACT text you wish to add to the article, and then include the source that supports it.  Have you noticed that no one else is responding to this conversation? It's because they know that if you add something to the article again, and you haven't discussed it here in detail, you will be blocked.  However if you propose your change here,  they either have to let your edit go through, or engage you in discussion as to what is wrong with your edit.
I wish to write this, 
Prior to Robert Hill's retirement in 2006 he voted for legalizing the abortion drug RU486 which had been banned in Australia up until that point.--Smokeyfire (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying that the text you want to add is or isn't appropriate for the article, however it appears to your statement is sourced to Hill's vote.  Absent any complaints or responses, you should be able to add it without fear of admin reprisal, because you stated your intention on the talk page and others chose not to respond.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I still object.  My original issue still has not been addressed.  Nothing says why the abortion vote is more important than any of his thousands of other votes.  The reference used says nothing why Hill voted, it is just a half sentence.  Essentially a roll call ref.  If any issue is notable for inclusion on Hill's page, there would multiple reference about Hill, his vote and why/ramification of his vote.   I didn't respond because Smokeyfire didn't invite everyone from the previous talk page.  Bgwhite (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not a roll call vote, and this RS deemed that hill was a notable MP who voted.  That's certainly good enough to use the source.  We don't need multiple references to include this, at least policy doesn't dictate this.  That leaves only your concern of weight. Is that correct?  Smokey, can you explain why out of all the positions Hill has taken, why does  this one merit a mention when others don't?Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RU486 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert Hill (Australian politician). 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/20120616221648/http://www.gg.gov.au/res/file/2012/honours/qb2012/Media%20Notes%20AC%20%28final%29.pdf to http://www.gg.gov.au/res/file/2012/honours/qb2012/Media%20Notes%20AC%20(final).pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified