Talk:Lisa Cameron

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lisa Cameron. 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/20150518082742/http://www.snp.org/people/lisa-cameron to http://www.snp.org/people/lisa-cameron

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) 18:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Selection Contest and Defection (2023) section

This section seems incredibily detailed and out of proporation to this biographic article. I've never head of Lisa Cameron before, but reading through that section gives far too much detail relative to the notability of the situation and the MP. I might try and trim it down, but it's hard to know where to start. Seaweed (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to have a go at editing it, with the salient points included. BillyDee (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverts by user:Zwv9009

User:Zwv9009, you continue to personally attack me in the edits of this, and to revert edits that attempt to improve the article. (Eg my last one removed unsourced details you added, removed broken links and non-notable information and removed the mention of her 2023 defection from the "Early career" section. In general, it sought to improve readability.)

I am still concerned at your possible W:BLP violations, given this was the first page you edited, largely extensively. You have been critical that I have repeatedly edited Scottish politics pages, and misrepresented my history. (I've not edited them exclusively, and not with "pronationalis bias".) You are not engaging with points, and continue re-adding unsourced details, and violate OR. (e.g in your edit here which you erroneously label as minor, you add original research, add details of something already included (defection) to an inappropriate section),.

Your stance on the subject of this page, which you have edited extensively, beginning shortly after a slew of users which were created solely to edit this page stopped doing so., seems quite clear. I'd request you, per repeated requests, discuss changes here, rather than continue to personally attack me. WorthPoke2 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been no repeated attacks on you Worthpoke only factual information that you do edit a lot of Conserative representatives pages negatively, as per your user log. This is not a personal attack merely a statement of fact and Im sorry you feel that way.. I don't know what you mean about "slew of users.". You have been posting content on this wiki page since 2022, all of which has been edits that are negative towards the page and some of which violates the BLP policy. All information provided on the page has been quite clearly referenced. The broader text that one edited . The page has been edited last month and there was not edited again till you reverted ones edits that seems to happen very consistently. Xwv9009 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"There have been no repeated attacks on you Worthpoke only factual information that you do edit a lot of Conserative representatives pages negatively, as per your user log. This is not a personal attack merely a statement of fact"

This is false, on multiple accounts.

I've edited the page of three Conservative representatives this year: this, adding to Anna Soubry's page that Jo Swinson's was a successor in one ministerial role, and adding to Douglas Ross's page the story that ended up leading to him stepping down from a leadership role. I find it odd you seem to think it was inappropriate to include that on his page. Moreover, that's not what you've accused me of. You wrote: ""Worthpoke2" who exclusively is maliciously editing this page and a number of other unionist/labour politicians with pro nationalist bias" and "User has made repeated malicious edits with nationalist bias."

You are being both utterly disingenuous and wrong to claim that saying I edit maliciously, or, indeed, that those pages are all I edit. (I dispute the pro-nationalist bias, too, but the prior points are clearly factually wrong on multiple levels.)

Your summary reverting the edit is also inaccurate: " the article is more readable with intended edits and less political bias.The EK and Strathaven result is factual in the context of the constituency and is referenced. All articles have been fully referenced and fact checked so contribute to the context of readability of the article itself. The article is more readable in the context of having more details re defection. Crypto appg and disability activism are also noteworthy in this context"

Removing details like her failed second selection attempt is not "less bias" nor is adding in charged language. I struggle to see how repeatedly re-adding details already mentioned multiple times to inaccurate time periods helps. I very much dispute that it is more readable -- and the article is definitely too long.

I did not remove the Crypto APPG. I removed it as a section when it was also mentioned elsewhere in the page. I cannot see how " in 2023, Cameron's group published the first Inquiry report into Cryptocurrency Regulation and realisation of the UKs ambition to become a crypto hub involving both MPs and Members of the House of Lords" at all is notable, let alone in an article on Cameron.

You have not explained why you continue to undo any removal of your addition of her 2023 defection, mentioned both earlier and later in the page, from her (pre-2015) early career section.

You also continue to add more and more quotes from Cameron to this page -- which other users have noticed is an issue. This currently contains around 223 quotes from Cameron and or reporting of her statements, including twice in three paragraphs noting ' she stated that she wanted to “focus her energies constructive policies that benefit everyone across the four nations of the UK, and to move towards healing divisions caused by nationalism for the collective good"'. I would question the inclusion of this once, twice is unreasonable.

Including details like that "Cameron also said she believed the Governments vision of a Digital Britain was in reach and advocated for development of a cross party strategy. Cameron said 'you cant keep your head in the sand and hope crypto goes away' and said that a best practice regime is needed." in a generic debate she led does not seem notable, or worthy of her wikipedia article (see WP:NOT, in particular WP:PROMO and WP:NOTNEWS).

Adding to the 2015 parliament section her 2018 raising of her dissatisfaction with the independent press review with the government is misplacing it. I also really struggle to see the notability of this in the article. That she continued to be unhappy with an article after it was ruled okay is doesn't really matter.

Your claim that the 2024 result is sourced is inaccurate. It contains OR noting the number of votes in 2024 vs 2019. It also seems very much a POV comparison, as others would point out that the result for EK&S was basically identical to national swing.

I've repeatedly attempted to discuss with you, despite multiple people having concerns about your potential BLP violations on this page, which you joined to edit, which had earlier been protected due to frequency of newly created accounts pushing the position you are.

You have not discussed the valid points I've made. You multiple times reverted and went for personal attacks on me, which you now deny, in another example of your clear dishonesty and disingenuity.

I'd be grateful if you apologise for the personal attacks listed above, I have multiple times attempted to delete things that clearly do not belong and repetitious material, but you seem determined to jsut revert to your poorly written version.

If you do not talk here before reverting, I'll be reporting you pursuant to WP:1RR WorthPoke2 (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)