User talk:Xtra/Archive2

Phil
Oh, sure, and he has already rm me from his page, which I fully expected. The History of that page is a real horror story. Thanks for the wave. --Bishonen | Talk 00:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:148.244.150.58
Hiya! I went to block him.. but two other admins had already done so. :-) --Stormie 01:08, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hoddle Highway
Regarding your change to Hoddle Street, Melbourne, I'm looking at my Melway right now, and a the section of road comprised of Hoddle St. and Punt Rd between the Eastern Freeway and Dandenong Rd. is quite clearly marked Hoddle Hwy. Please confirm and revert. --mordemur 13:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

multiple usernames
Regarding your comment on my userpage, I've never used multiple usernames at all. I'm actually quite a stickler for that sort of shenanigans. Please let me know what username I might be confused with, as I'm now rather paranoid... --mordemur 14:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

user talk:Iasson
Please try and remain civil with him; it doesn't help the case any if you give him reasons to complain. hfool/Roast me 04:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Danby
I just posted a sentence because the existing text did not match the quotation cited. I am not familiar with the overall issues surrounding Danby. You can re-edit as you please. In the long run, the best way to answer a solitary criticism may be to offset it with more favorable quotations. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche
Xtra, as you've been having trouble with the LaRouche editor(s) at Michael Danby, I thought this might interest you. A request to the developers regarding user accounts User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Weed Harper and User:C Colden received the following response: "On technical evidence, combined with similarity in posting patterns, Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can be considered to be operated by the same person. C Colden is either the same person or working in coordination with them, but is not *firmly* established to be the same person." Best, SlimVirgin 04:24, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your note. It would be very helpful if you could involve yourself in some capacity. I asked Adam but he said he doesn't want to (I think he's had enough of them). I'm currently compiling a list of section headers (e.g. evidence of sockpuppetry, evidence of 3RR violation etc). Each person who submits evidence may submit 1,000 words and up to 100 diffs. It would be very helpful if you could write a section on the trouble (POV-pushing or whatever) Herschel has caused on the Australian articles - bearing in mind that he and Weed Harper are deemed by the developers to be the same person. It's quite a bit of work though, because you have to supply the diffs for each example, so don't feel you have to. SlimVirgin 07:07, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

user talk:tancred
Hi I live in Sydney. I know that the name of the game is now football. We have the Football Federation Australia. Work is underway for Soccer NSW to become Football NSW. The A-League is refered to as a Football competition. In Sydney, SBS, Foxtel and the Sydney Morning Herald are calling it football. The clubs are calling it football. Even Melbourne Victory is now Melbourne Victory FC. Perth and Brisbane will be changing in Feb.

I should say this is also not just a new direction. Several of the old NSL clubs were football clubs and a number of the NSW assoications are "football assoications"

The FFA have also said that the "Socceroos" nickname will not no longer be officially used and hopefully fade from everyday use, leaving us with "Australia", or the Australian Football Team.

I can see that you live in Victoria and might have a problem with this, but it's happened. As a side note many people in Sydney know that game as football. When I look at the pages for other football clubs in wikipedia they are just "football" clubs and I feel that level of respect should be given to the Australian clubs.

user talk: thebainer
hi Xtra, I'll be doing 2nd year arts/law in 2005. I've seen some of those judge articles, they're good. There's polenty of biographical stuff out there so we can finish off the list. --bainer 10:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: moving The Commonwealth v Tasmania, I was planning to move this (aswell as the other three existing cases, Mabo, R v Carroll and Wik) once we sort out a naming policy, since none of them are currently consistent with each other. I don't think anyone has any major problems with the naming, so I could probably do that pretty soon. --bainer 02:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who said you were too dumb to read the Age. Who am I to disagree with you? Adam 04:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks
That is a rule (see No personal attacks). A simple attack isn't enough to warrant blocking (see Blocking policy), but vandalism is. I'd block User:169.229.36.24, but I like to give plenty of warnings before actually blocking, and he appears to have left for now. Thanks for the note. – Jrdioko (Talk)  02:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Code v Common Law
Being a Western Australian, I inherently favour the Code approach to the criminal law. However, many of its perceived advantages (unified criminal law unequivocably set down in writing in one place) are diminished due to the same old problems of interpretation. Instead of having to interpret what a Justice of the High Court meant, we are resigned to interpreting what the lawmakers intended the section to mean, which is often more difficult. Also, some offences in Western Australia are created in statutes outside of the Criminal Code, so the criminal law is hardly unified in one place. A final disadvantage of using a Criminal Code is that it only has the benefit of the Common Law decisions outside of Western Australia up until the time of the enactment of the Code in 1902, since the Code replaces the common law. Only where the current Code provisions are substantially the same as the current common law can Western Australians refer to the common law for authority. - Mark 08:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your archive of Talk:Liberal Party of Australia
Hello. You incorrectly archived Talk:Liberal Party of Australia and now its history is split between two pages. I would normally just merge the page histories, but another user posted a comment on the archive page you created, so I have to wait for his response before I decide what to do with his comment. Either way, the page should not have been archived. It was nowhere near the size where archiving becomes necessary. If you did not want the inflammatory conversation to be left on the talk page, you could probably have just removed the bits which were attacking you. But it was a legitimate argument about the content of the article, so its essence really should remain. - Mark 12:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * To properly archive a talk page, click the move tab up top, and move it to the subpage title. Then re-create the talk page with the link to the archive. That way, peoples' contributions history will point to the archive page where their comments are, rather than to the blanked talk page. - Mark 00:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was going to come to this talk page and tell you that blocking policy would not allow me to block the anonymous user simply on the basis of this content dispute. A dispute about article content like this is definitely not vandalism, and it is silly to claim the user is working against consensus when so few people have joined in the conversation on the talk page. A lot worse is (unfortunately) tolerated on Wikipedia, and it would be disproportionate to impose a long-term or range block on this user on the basis that he or she has reverted an article a few times. He or she didn't even break the three-revert rule. I suggest resolving the situation by incorporating into the article the disagreement over whether the party is conservative or neo-liberal. - Mark 04:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you think this anon is bad, you obviously haven't experienced Wikipedia much. We have admins who do exactly the same thing, who we can't block. You warned the anon not to continue to vandalise Wikipedia, and that user has not done so since the warning. Posting a talk page message (however rude or presumptuous) or a request for arbitration is not vandalism. Hence, we cannot block. - Mark 04:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user
Hi. I'm off on holiday in a few hours, and won't be back for a couple of weeks. If you have any problems, you can always find a few helpful souls on the #Wikipedia IRC channel. I hope this dispute gets resolved. - Mark 07:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have had confirmation from a developer that PSYCH, Buffy05 and the anonomos user are all the same person. Xtra 12:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have removed PSYCH's posts and placed them on archive Xtra 09:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dot-map explanation
Hi Xtra,

Dot-maps are simply maps of a country's primary geographical subdivisions (states, provinces, etc.) in which a red dot is used to denote a city/place's general location. Nothing especially complicated, by itself. The main thing with these maps (besides the time it takes to make them) is interpretation of geographical data. The original dot-maps were started by Seth_Ilys. For an example, click here. If you have any other questions, feel free to reply on my talk page! Bumm13 13:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) (talk)

Re: vandalism
Thanks for the revert, and for the head's up! It's very much appreciated. I'e blocked User:Sass indefinitely, as he failed to heed my warning. (I've also received abusive emails from him, but that's another matter.) I should also take this opportunity to apologise for not being around to answer your previous message regarding 210.50.249.123; I'm glad to see Mark was able to help. Cheers and happy editing, -- Hadal 18:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

answer
It all depends on the arbcom. RickK 09:13, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I can't block anybody permanently without an arbcom ruling unless they have no valid edits. Somebody like Silsor will just come around and unblock them. RickK 09:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Psych on ALP
Sorry you are having to deal with his trolling. However, he is a new user and does need to learn the ropes. Stirling Newberry 13:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You kept your cool under fire, best that we can do. Stirling Newberry 21:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

herschel
Thanks Xtra! I've just cracked open a bottle of vintage Wikichampagne. ;-) SlimVirgin 06:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

why do you keep bugging me?
Why do you feel that I, personally, have to get involved in this. I've made statements, I've suggested he knock it off. You don't want to make an RfA, so then deal with it. If you want to make an RfA something might get done, but it's not my responsibility to hold your hand. RickK 22:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

arbitration
Sorry to hear that Xtra. I looked on the RfA but couldn't see anything. Who does it involve? SlimVirgin 04:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening
Your request for arbitration with PSYCH has been accepted. Please bring evidence to Requests for arbitration/PSYCH/Evidence. -- 03:23, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)


 * Please carefully examine the request above and consider doing what it says, put your evidence concerning this matter on Requests for arbitration/PSYCH/Evidence. I was ready to start working on this and when I go to the evidence page, you just refer to another page. Fred Bauder 17:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ian Healy as ODI captain
Hi there!

Re your comment about Warne, Healy and Gilchrist being captains. cricketarchive player search shows Healy as being captain in 8 ODI's. Gilchrist shows 7 and Warne 11. See Healy's stats are at (long URL!): http://www.cricketarchive.com/cgi-bin/player_oracle_reveals_results2.cgi?playernumber=1916&playername=Healy&playernameexact=&displayplayername=IA%20Healy&team=&teamexact=&opponent=&opponentexact=&captain=on&wicketkeeper=&homeawaytype=All&matchtype=All&resulttype=All&startseason=&endseason=&searchtype=MatchList&startscore=&endscore=
 * sorry, that should have been: :http://www.cricketarchive.com/cgi-bin/player_oracle_reveals_results2.cgi?playernumber=1916&playername=Healy&playernameexact=&displayplayername=IA%20Healy&team=&teamexact=&opponent=&opponentexact=&captain=on&wicketkeeper=&homeawaytype=All&matchtype=ODI&resulttype=All&startseason=&endseason=&searchtype=MatchList&startscore=&endscore=
 * Ianbrown 04:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The search page is at: http://www.cricketarchive.com/cgi-bin/ask_the_player_oracle.cgi Enter player name, select "as captain" and "ODI". - Ianbrown 03:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pcpcpcp
I am mortified at being on his list, I can barely sleep and my life ir ruined. In the meantime I note Edward who was on a previous ignore list is now delisted, and you have yet to acheive that distinction - something for you to aspire to in life. The answer, I suppose, is to ignore him too, but its very hard not to keep looking in to see the latest installment. I just worry how many new users have visited that page never to return - who can blame them. Anyway thanks for the message - it's appreciated. Giano 09:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He's destroying the whole body of knowledge on business leaders, industrialists, and the like. I guess that's how he gets to be "into the five figures." --Leifern 02:55, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling
The case against PSYCH has closed. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:51, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

Federal Executive Council
I tried to find information on the position of Vice-President from somewhere, but I can't. Please feel free to make the neccesary changes. Lacrimosus 06:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Victorian Bushrangers and Victorian bushrangers history
Even not doing most of the indicated cleanup myself, it usually takes me a good 30-40 hours of editing to make it thru a list of 500 newpages (typically 6-8 hrs worth), so I look at what I'm doing as triage, tagging most articles for whatever type of cleanup seems to be indicated, and only doing ones where I have appropriate knowledge/interest myself (eg If I come across a substub for something that can be found in IMDb I generally expand it a bit, do other cleanup if necessary, add cats and the IMDb link, and just flag it as a stub). In this case, especially since a quick scan indicated the history article also needed a copyedit for NPOV and wikification, TLC from someone who knows the subject seemed better than getting editted by someone as unknowledgable about the subject as me. Niteowlneils 23:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Xtra, thank you for voting for me in my adminship nomination, and for your kind comment. I very much appreciate your support. Best, SlimVirgin 01:56, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism
You're quite welcome; I've since blocked the user for 24 hours. I'd have set a longer block (as it's obvious this person isn't new), but s/he is connecting through a school server&mdash;a Berkeley server! Not as amusing as the time I blocked a Yale student, but it's still a bit unexpected. Cheers, -- Hadal 05:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marr & Kingston
Could you please respond to the points I have raised and attempt to answer the questions I have put regarding arbitary labeling of references as "left wing".

It is not sufficient to autocratically make a contested change and refuse to offer any reasonable argument for it. The only argument you have presented so far seems to be that you feel vindictive about changes made by other editors who you regard as "left wing".

I am removing the labels again on the basis that several comments in the discussion page agree that they should be removed. If you wish to re-insert them I suggest you first make an attempt to participate more fully in the discussion. --Wm 01:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please moderate your tone when leaving messages. Your allegations about me labelling people as right wing are completely baseless. Try and keep calm and instead of slinging abuse and false accusations, address the points I have raised in the discussion on the discussion page. So far you have not made any attempt to do so. Pleae note specifically the points I have asked you to comment on:


 * Could you please explain exactly why you feel it is important to label these authors as "left wing"
 * Please explain what you mean by "left wing".
 * Please explain exactly what beliefs held by these two individuals do you regard as indicating that they are left wing.
 * Malcolm Fraser a member of the same political party as John Howard has been critical of Howard. Do you also regard him as "left wing"?
 * Does Marr belong to any political party? Instead of labeling Marr as a "left wing columnist) - why not label him as a "noted biographer and journalist"?
 * On what basis is it more important to label him "left wing"?
 * Please provide an example of where a similar reference has been annotated in such a fashion.

You also have ignored my reference to the Wikipedia article on left wing politics where it is noted that the term left wing "(with no particular precision) to the segment of the political spectrum". My point is that the term does not have any precise meaning.

You have also ignored and failed to respond to my reference to normal formal structure of citations, which does not normally including a classification of

Also you are fabricating stories that I have labeled people as right wing. This is completely untrue. Please provide a reference to an example of where you believe I have labeled people as right wing.

--Wm 12:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth template
The discussion is a bit spread out on this issue. See Talk:Canada, User_talk:Cyberjunkie, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, and User talk:SimonP - SimonP 23:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting
Don't worry, Xtra, it was just a weird edit conflict. Boothby443 and you were both reverting the charming drawing at the same time, and I was editing the page for something else, unaware of the drama that was unfolding around me. LOL! Thanks for coming to revert though. I appreciate it. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Revert, a note to follow "So?"
It's a bit like the Do Re Me song: Revert, a note to follow "So?" There appears to be a bias in some of the matters that need reverting, such as your recent one on JH. It's like there is an amateur hour going on, with far-from-inventive changes that allow anyone to see the lack of subtlety. Peter Ellis 09:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we actually agree, on many things, so please see my comment at User_talk:Peter_Ellis. Peter Ellis 01:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Adam 02:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. A small grandfilial gesture. Adam 15:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: thanks
It's no problem; it was my pleasure. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 19:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right; I hadn't realized the similarity of IP addresses and edits. Thanks for the info. Regardless, user page vandalism is always inappropriate. I hope he finds other ways to contribute or better things to do with his time. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 17:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
If the vandalism of your user page becomes overly irritating, I suggest you ask an admin for the page to be temporarily protected. -- FP 11:29, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

thanx to the editors who reverted the vandalism to my userpage. Xtra 12:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sheesh, sorry Xtra. I didn't even check the version before the vandal's, just hit the rollback button. I get the same thing done to mine from time to time; they are too stupid to worry about. If you need page protection at any point, just holler. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:11, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi dude. I've taken the liberty of protecting your user page, give me a holler whenever you want me to lift it. Maybe they'll get bored and move on. - Mark 08:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Xtra, do you have any idea who's doing this, so we can deal with them? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Messages to and from anonymous user
Posted here by the anonymous user who has been editing Xtra's user pages:


 * Unless I lose all morals and approve of homophobia... I won't get bored. What worries me more is that people let Xtra get away with hatred, homophobia, conservativism and ignorance.


 * You need to ask yourself whether you support his hatred and ignorance, instead of reverting back to his bigotted outlook on life.10:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily share Xtra's political and other beliefs. However, as Voltaire is alleged to have said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Xtra's user page is Xtra's own personal space, and I will continue to revert abusive vandalism of it. Maintaining a person's user page the way they intend it does not constitute a personal acceptance of that user's ideologies. If you wish to criticise a user for any beliefs he or she may hold, I encourage you to actually engage in constructive conversation with them, rather than smearing them with annoying vandalism which just proves an annoyance for the rest of us who have much better things to be doing with our time. You may find controversial issues are rarely black and white. - Mark 14:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

PSYCH and the anonymous vandal
He's vandalising - any of these IPs can be blocked on sight on those grounds (though permabans are a bit hard when they change IPs, as they can also catch innocent users, which is a Bad Thing). As he seems to be no longer editing from the account, that's probably all that can be done - although if you think he's editing under another name or something, it may be worth having the user himself banned from Wikipedia (though if he's just vandalising, there's probably no point). Ambi 14:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Please try to avoid feeding the troll on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia. I would much rather simply have their comments removed from the page. Slac speak up!  11:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia
I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate. Adam 23:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

My proposed policy position is this:
 * That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:
 * 1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy
 * 2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia
 * 3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.


 * That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
 * Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You know who!!!
I deliberately created the page of evidence with that in mind. I wanted to see if at last he might stop producing garbage and actually offer credible sources. In fact he has done nothing but repeat his poorly researched half-baked theories. The evidence on the page stands to allow everyone (visitors to the page, arbitrators, independent-minded people, etc) a chance to see the solid reasoning behind everyone's disagreement with him. It has exposed his ideas for what they are - poorly researched and preposterous. So now we can move on, and leave it to the arbitation team to analyse the evidence of his behaviour and issue a ruling. Ultimately he has no-one but himself to blame for getting himself into the mess he is in. I've given him tons of evidence. He has flailed around and produced dodgy mispresentations. So we can now move on without him. He had his chance. He blew it. Issue closed. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Aus Greens
I'm not trying to push my POV. Maybe find a link with an independent critique. Only Family First and One Nation have critical links, and neither of these are directly from another policital party. Jgritz 11:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * sorry - correct that - the lib/lab do have critical links but these are courtesy of the SMH. Still think an independent critique would be better though - I'll have a look myself and see if I can find anything. Jgritz 12:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Australian Capital Television
Very nice article. However, I could not find the conclusion of the court with regards to the state powers argument. Xtra 06:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the majority (Mason, Deane, Toohey & Gaudron) discussed the issue without deciding it, since they overruled the act based on the implied right. Only Brennan & McHugh decided the states' rights thing, since they overruled only those parts of the act that discriminated against the states. --bainer (talk) 08:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Voila!
Done. If you need it re-done just ask. - Mark 02:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ALP rules
That no candidate can be endorsed who will turn 65 in the relevant term. The rule would probably be found to be illegal if it was challenged under anti-discrimination law, but so far it hasn't been. Adam 12:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Anderson
I was not talking about him being acting Prime Minister during the Prime Minister's absence I was talking about the transition of one Prime Minister to another hence Page, Fadden and McEwen which is why these three men have been listed as Prime Ministers. Fadden was Country Party leader after Page's successor Archie Cameron and McEwen followed Fadden and since McEwen no National Party leader has ever been called upon to be Prime Minister (officially) for an interim period. --The Shadow Treasurer 29 June 2005 00:06 (UTC)

Hi Xtra. Keep your eye out for the Tony Newell vandal. He is recreating Tony Newell (which is complete fiction from start to finish) and Mt ida highway, plus making links to those pages. He will presumably think of something different to do soon. He is using (so far) two different usernames and at least 2 different IP addresses. Thanks, Tannin 4 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Vfd
You might be interested in this VfD: Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews. Jayjg (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Australian Antarctic Territory
Actually, there is: Australia's signature on the Antarctic Treaty. Slac speak up!  02:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Titles
Because, sadly, I am not in charge of everything that happens at Wikipedia. If British or New Zealand or whatever Wikipedians want to clutter up their articles with ugly titles and acronyms, that's their business. I can only pay attention to the 1,000-plus articles I have on my watchlist. Adam 05:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Barendse
I reverted the first bit because, for the umpteenth time, you've attempted to remove any and all information that casts Barendse in a slightly negative light.

Secondly, the manner in which you added the Joyce quote casts real doubt on your motives. Joyce did say compulsory unionism was dead - but in the next line, categorically ruled out supporting the Barendse legislation, insisting on an amended version which the ALSF and Barendse decry. Barendse declared that he had Joyce's vote in the bag, and he ended up looking like a fool when he was proved wrong. That's still the case. Ambi 13:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Eric Warbuton
Can we do something to get this idiot banned from Australian articles? He contributes nothing worthwhile, is ignorant and semi-literate, wastes everyone's time with his stupid edits, and abuses anyone who tries to correct him. Adam 06:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

A bit touchy today Mr Carr? You got me wrong I only return your insults verbatim-and you clearly find it irritating so hold your own tongue -and I will too. As for the Joyce text, he went to school at 'Riverview' which may be 'in' Riverview but no-one would care. If you want to say his wife is 'part' Lebanese- go ahead, but shes probably 'part' Anglo-Saxon and part 20 other races--its smacks of some sort of breeding program to me -and anyway its genetically inept. But you seem to know best. Just dont include me. Eric A. Warbuton

Debnam
Serves me right for believing the ABC. Adam 03:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Members of the Order of Australia
I did the same thing for the Category:Members of the Order of Canada and it also has the same issue. I could change it to Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia or Order of Australia recipients but I am sure this will cause issues as well with the spelling of "recipients". However, if you feel this is better let me know and I am open to changing it. --YUL89YYZ 09:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Poltical infobox
Hi Xtra. I don't think so, although that's something that the new infobox could do. At present, it's no different from the old box except for the "see also" section and the colours. The box is used for State-based parties also, so any specification could be difficult in that regard. Perhaps the best thing to do is just create articles for the State branches of the main parties.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was late in reply :).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Queen of Australia
Hi, thanks for explaining the meaning of non-justiciable, but I think you'll find that it was Adam who asked.JSIN 12:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Shoot to kill
Hi Xtra,

This is just a heads up.

I'm about to grab some lunch. When I get back and assuming nothing better appears on Talk:Australian Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 in the meantime, I plan to make the following update to STK.

One particular clause has drawn the ire of the state premiers, the so called Shoot to kill clause. Based on a similar provision in existing legislation, the clause treats people wanted under detention orders in the same way that current law treats wanted suspects.

Regards, BenAveling 03:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. I've also reworked the intro. Can you please review it for me?

Thanks, BenAveling 04:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Terror Bill
Hi Xtra,

I made some big changes! :-)

Well, I broke it into sections anyway.

Can you review for me.

Ta, Ben Aveling 21:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Xtra,

Some nice edits re the bill. But could you have waited more than 4 minutes after I posted "Merge _in progress_" ? :-)

Regards, Ben Aveling 22:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to make my head spin, or is that just an unintended benefit for you. ;-)

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Privilege
It was the Browne-Fitzpatrick Case of 1955, when the House jailed Frank Browne, a Sydney journalist, and Fitzpatrick, the owner of the Bankstown paper that Browne edited, for three months for contempt of Parliament after Browne had said something scurrilous about Charlie Morgan, the Labor MP for Reid. Menzies and Evatt both hated Browne (who was certainly a slanderous ratbag) and colluded to fix him up. Whitlam opposed it, as did Frank Green the Clerk of the House. It certainly deserves an article. Adam 02:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup
We're having a Wikipedia meetup in Melbourne in about three weeks. Can you come? -- Tim Starling 06:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Old photos
You should probably look at the old photos I have putting at the Premier of Victoria series too. Adam 12:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of them are from the SLV or NLA websites, one or two are scanned from Ray Wright's book A People's Counsel. Adam 21:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ejected
He was one of three ejected by Ian Causley later in the afternoon. Adam 05:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It happens
I've just created a stub for busines council of australia.

Any suggestions for what should go there?

Regards, Ben Aveling 23:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Royal descent
Of course. I read a serious article somewhere recently which argued that probably everyone in the world of European extraction is descended from one or more mediaeval royal house, because the population of Europe then was so small, and upwards and downwards social mobility over the last thousands years has been so great, that the lines of descent are now so diffuse as to include everyone. The point, however, is that relatively few people can document their descent for more than a few generations. I am very lucky from that point of in having pure English descent, because England has among the best-preserved geneaological records (mainly parish registers) of any European country. Also my paternal great-grandfather was a terrible snob and he had it all traced. Adam 08:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Warning, large file.
Thanks, that's what I was trying to say. Ben Aveling 08:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)