| Revision as of 23:53, 7 July 2018 editDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators407,711 edits →The Australian← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:30, 8 July 2018 edit undoHiLo48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers91,429 edits →The Australian: Comments general in natureNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| :::::::This is the third time I have asked you not to be on my talk page I have no opinion either way as I've said to you about these newspapers either left or right. I find you to be harassing me.] (]) 23:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC) | :::::::This is the third time I have asked you not to be on my talk page I have no opinion either way as I've said to you about these newspapers either left or right. I find you to be harassing me.] (]) 23:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC) | ||
| *], you got a point, but so do they re:talk page. Kindly refrain. No response necessary but an eloquent silence. Thanks, ] (]) 23:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC) | *], you got a point, but so do they re:talk page. Kindly refrain. No response necessary but an eloquent silence. Thanks, ] (]) 23:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::A 90% valid comment, but I would argue that through being new on the job, this editor is making similar errors on other articles he is interested in, and my comments are thus general in nature. ] (]) 00:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:30, 8 July 2018
Talk:Emma Husar
As requested, issue re trivia in article now at Talk page. Please add your thoughts. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The Australian
The polite and ethical approach is to go looking for a source, not just delete text likely to be true, but that doesn't appeal to you. You could have gone to the Article's Talk page too. Your bias is blatantly on display. Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oh for gods sake! That POV comment was sitting there asking for a source for 3 years! Obviously there is no source otherwise it would be added. It is POV. Wanting to leave it there shows your bias I'm afraid to say. There is a limit as to how long content can sit there asking for a source before it is deleted.Merphee (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would really prefer if you made comment on the talk page too if that's ok with you.Merphee (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Don't need to. I've found sources. Wasn't at all difficult. Haven't looked closely at this article before, assuming everyone knew of its Murdoch driven, right wing agenda. I'll be onto it now. There's heaps out there. Shame you chose not to look. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- As I said I would prefer to talk on the article talk page. I clearly asked you about the one POV sentence that I deleted and had been sitting there for 3 years and you then immediately attacked me and said I was biased for doing so. The sentence was "The Australian has often been criticised for being biased against recent Labor governments" You did not add a source for that. I would be a monkey's uncle if you did. Have you found one?Merphee (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I spent five minutes and found the material I did. Wouldn't take long to find more. Good faith editing would have meant assuming the line was put there in good faith, and going off to find a source yourself. You are being foolish in thinking such a line was wrong. I agree content should be discussed on the Talk page, but here I am helping a new editor become a better one. It's puzzling that you can truly believe that The Australian is balanced. Every other non-Murdoch, media outlet in Australia would be to its left on a linear spectrum. Is it your belief that all the others are biased, lefty publications? Because saying The Australian is balanced is saying just that. BTW - we all have our biases. A good editor knows his own biases and works hard to keep them out of his editing. Mine are certainly not on the right hand end of the spectrum. Yours? HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is the third time I have asked you not to be on my talk page I have no opinion either way as I've said to you about these newspapers either left or right. I find you to be harassing me.Merphee (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I spent five minutes and found the material I did. Wouldn't take long to find more. Good faith editing would have meant assuming the line was put there in good faith, and going off to find a source yourself. You are being foolish in thinking such a line was wrong. I agree content should be discussed on the Talk page, but here I am helping a new editor become a better one. It's puzzling that you can truly believe that The Australian is balanced. Every other non-Murdoch, media outlet in Australia would be to its left on a linear spectrum. Is it your belief that all the others are biased, lefty publications? Because saying The Australian is balanced is saying just that. BTW - we all have our biases. A good editor knows his own biases and works hard to keep them out of his editing. Mine are certainly not on the right hand end of the spectrum. Yours? HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- As I said I would prefer to talk on the article talk page. I clearly asked you about the one POV sentence that I deleted and had been sitting there for 3 years and you then immediately attacked me and said I was biased for doing so. The sentence was "The Australian has often been criticised for being biased against recent Labor governments" You did not add a source for that. I would be a monkey's uncle if you did. Have you found one?Merphee (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Don't need to. I've found sources. Wasn't at all difficult. Haven't looked closely at this article before, assuming everyone knew of its Murdoch driven, right wing agenda. I'll be onto it now. There's heaps out there. Shame you chose not to look. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would really prefer if you made comment on the talk page too if that's ok with you.Merphee (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48, you got a point, but so do they re:talk page. Kindly refrain. No response necessary but an eloquent silence. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- A 90% valid comment, but I would argue that through being new on the job, this editor is making similar errors on other articles he is interested in, and my comments are thus general in nature. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)