Talk:Matthew Guy/Archive 1

What, if anything, should we say about the Phillip Island rezoning?

The controversy about the Phillip Island rezoning continues to simmer. I reverted an edit with the latest bit from The Age, since it was obviously non-neutral ("used taxpayers money [sic] ... prevented Minister Guy from having to tell the truth ..."). Should we have a paragraph here? We certainly do with similar figures (e.g. Geoff Shaw) but I think it will be difficult to find a neutral, unbiased statement. Maybe we could have "Guy was criticised for reversing a decision", etc. But, of course, he was criticised for the initial decision, too, so obviously he can't win. And governmental decisions are changed all the time. The Opposition, of course, will always call it a "backflip". StAnselm (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A wiki editor editor is allowing legally actionable material to appear on this page, linked to newspaper reports that are not based on fact but are speculative. They should be listed as speculation, not fact.

It has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.255.231 (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You removed a whole lot of referenced information with a generic claim, and without explaining why exactly in each case. In the same time introduced unreferenced non-neutral text such as "to broad support" for the Australia 108 approval or regarding the Phillip Island rezoning that the ombudsman "found no wrong doing", which is contradicted by facts. --ELEKHH^T 04:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This is blatantly political and should be reported. The Ombudsman inquired in to the department, not the Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.24.235 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No legally actionable material exists in earlier edits. Edits reflect the sound secondary sources used. If improvements could be made, please discuss on talk page, rather than mass content blanking - or like that one about the Department / Minister - just make the change and discuss. Also changed heading to allow for more content as Minister 1955Dewayne (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Material posted on this site about Ted Baillieu is legally actionable.

There are many factional inaccuracies in what has been written here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.255.231 (talk • contribs) 25 June 2014‎

Please explain what precisely is inaccurate so we can correct it. And please be aware of WP:LEGAL. --ELEKHH^T 10:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"Material posted on this site about Ted Baillieu is legally actionable" Please check the citations. They accurately reflect the major newspaper sources and the handsard record of the Victorian Parliament. 1955Dewayne (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Plan Melbourne

Article would be enhanced by a section on Plan Melbourne. Pro and cons. Covered widely with many secondary sources.1955Dewayne (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

He's the leader of the opposition of the second largest state of Australia, how come the whole article is on "controversies" WP:CSECTION

He's the leader of the opposition of the second largest state of Australia, how come the whole article is on "controversies" WP:CSECTION.