Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Robb

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

Assumed office

[edit]

The article says that he assumed office on 9 October 2004. That is wrong because that was when he first elected to Parliament. Robb assumes office when he was sworn in later on. The articles on US politicians states the date they assume office is the day they were sworn in not the day they were elected. So why not do the same with Australian politicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Shadow Treasurer (talk • contribs) 07:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

religion

[edit]

In response to Melbournewater (talk · contribs) If you are going to delete his religion, do so for every single Australian politician and then come back to delete this one. Most politicans would like their religious affiliation known;
It doesn't matter what a politician wants on the wikipedia article about them, articles are not promotional and need to comply with wikipedia policy and consensus and a consensus has been formed that religion not be added to politician's articles unless it is a significant part of their public life such as Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd. Even then it should be added to the body of the article not the infobox. If religion is in other articles about politicians please feel free to remove it. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 12:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Arobb highdef.jpg

[edit]

Image:Arobb highdef.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Arobb highdef.jpg

[edit]

Image:Arobb highdef.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

[edit]

Religion neither relevant nor irrelevant, it is simply giving the reader a piece of information about the individual. There is absolutely no reason to not add it if it is sourced, which in this case, it is. There's not much more to say... why would wikipedia give the option to add the religion of an individual in the infobox if it was so irrelevant. The source is there, so why not simply add it. Andreas11213 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider religion a private matter. If you want to wear it on your sleeve, your choice. If you want to hide it, or say 'I don't do religion', your choice, too. Most people, including politicians, are not so much influenced by religion, but by pragmatism, although to some of their clientele reference to religion sounds good. Religion is a nothing burger because most people have bigger problems to solve in 2024. . 2001:8003:A070:7F00:5DA5:F4BD:75DE:92E6 (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Andrew Robb. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Robb. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Landbridge

[edit]

An editor has removed the paragraph about Landbridge, with the edit summary "misleading innuendo". Looking at the sources, the deleted content seems to be substantially supported by them, and we should not be deleting relevant and reliably sourced content, even if embarrassing to the subject. However, I was not able to rigorously verify every single statement in a reasonable time (I didn't attempt to watch the video of the Four Corners program), so in the interests of caution in view of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy I am not going to restore the material myself. There is clearly at least some material that can be reinstated, though. If someone wants to do so, given that it is clearly of a controversial nature, could I please encourage you to go through and reference every single claim separately to the relevant source that supports it, for ease of verification -- and in the case of anything sourced from the Four Corners program, to put into the footnote the time offset where the claim is made, so that people do not need to sift through 47 minutes in order to verify the claim. Thank you. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: actually, I will reinstate the first sentence of that paragraph, together with its source, because that much is easy to verify. But the rest I will leave to others: there are clearly various allegations, but I did not find anything clear in the written sources regarding a personal donation or about the timing of accepting the post, and it is in relation to these claims that more precise referencing is needed. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2: actually, the Guardian article is clear that he accepted the job while still an MP. I will restore that also. This still leaves some of the deleted content that I am not prepared to restore myself. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Robb. 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:

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) 11:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Robb&oldid=1211115530"