User talk:Xtra/Archive1

Comments

That amounts to the same thing, since McGauran is No 2 on the Coalition ticket and will be elected on Ronaldson's preferences after the 1st count. Anyone who votes 1 DLP, 2 McGauran, 3 Collins is effectively casting a 2nd preference vote for Collins. Adam 03:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The main reason I object to religous political parties is that, in the case of the Knesset and possibly with the Christain Democrat Party in Oz, if they get a seat and don't get their policies all passed, some which are totally outrageous, they make it harder for the Government to operate. Parties such as Shas and UTJ only serve to block legislation. If they are going to cooperate however I don't mind them. I appreciate you leaving discussing this with me. Evolver of Borg 12:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the Greens would be in that category. I probably add something on them, whom I dearly hate, to my page after the election. Evolver of Borg 12:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please stop adding this irrelevant line about the Coalition Senate tickets where it makes no sense. If you can't find somewhere logical to put it, I will keep deleting it. Adam 15:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then find somewhere to put it where it makes sense. Adam 03:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 10:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 03:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Vote "NO". Opposed to SamSpade's unfriendly views in the Jew article. IZAK 09:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Howard

I'm not that fussed, only when you revert something that isn't obvious vandalism and seems POV, then may I suggest you put a reason in the summary field? I don't want to revert it again, so I'm taking it to the talk page. I also don't understand why you say that I'm putting in POV propaganda - I only reverted because you gave no explanation for why the revert happened. For all I know you might by pushing a POV also. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No offence taken - I know it wasn't a personal attack. And for the record both sentences are POV, only I believe the most recent revision less so. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. My point was that it was a comment about Isaacs, not about Cowen, and is therefore irrelevant to the Cowen article. Adam 09:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mark Latham

"I do not like the current leader of the ALP, Mark Latham, i find him far too dangerous, violent and untrustworthy to lead the country."

I've never understood this point of view. He certainly appears to be a little bit personally agressive, but lets compare him to John Howard for a moment. What could be more agressive than invading a country? Sure, a propensity to break taxi-drivers arms is not a desireable quality in a Prime Minister, but participating in the killing of 100,000 civilians (as estimated by a recent study) and showing no remorse is downright scary. - Borofkin 01:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to understand now... so you think that Mark Latham is violent without justification, whereas John Howard is violent with justification? I don't necessarily oppose the Iraq war, I just don't see how personal attributes such as "violent" and "dangerous", in the way people mean when they talk about Mark Latham, have any relavence to a persons ability to lead the country. Note: I respect your opinion too, otherwise I wouldn't be talking to you.

No worries. I'm not trying to attack you, just making conversation. :-) - Borofkin 02:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opinion for IZAK

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 07:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that, unless it is controlled, IZAK will explode the evidence page with attacks on Sam, and maybe others, while forgetting to defend himself and making the evidence confusing. If you respect him, and I think you do, encourage him to work on defending his actions, not trying to discredit Sam. Sam is not the subject of this arbitration, and Sam's section of comments only addresses one Arbitrator's comment. -- Netoholic @ 05:32, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

The main complaint is that the way that he "spams", and the words he uses, it only seems to serve his personal agenda (good, or bad, doesn't matter) and to make every issue a major fight. That is not how things are supposed to work. It is not about how many people you have on an issue, it is how you can work with others to come to a common issue WITHOUT name-calling and accusations. I hope you agree. -- Netoholic @ 05:41, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Xtra I copied the following here for you to read, as Netoholic had responded on your page.IZAK 06:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following comment is meant for User:Netoholic: "Again, I strongly urge you NOT to be the "prosecutor, Judge, and executioner" as that is not what Wikipedia is for. You have been in many of your own hot disputes, and you always tend to reach for the "arbitration jugular" without fairly contacting and debating other Users you disagree with." IZAK 05:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect. That is just flat out wrong, and you should just stop. -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Stop what? Objecting to Jew-hate and Anti-Semitism? Any normal human being would be outraged. IZAK 06:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

why don't both of you stop this slanging match, calm down, and try and work this out. Xtra 06:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I realy don't think it apropriate that you move IZAK's comments/evidence around. this will only infuriate things. As I suggested before - if you want to settle this like men (you know what I mean) I think you should step back from handling that RfA. Xtra 02:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) was posted but disapeared Xtra 03:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please keep encouraging him to defend his actions, rather than trying to "trump up" inflammatory material on me. I am not a perfect editor, but the arbitration isn't about me, it's about him and the Arbitrators may not respond very well. -- Netoholic @ 03:35, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Danby

The article is OK as it stands. The allegation that Danby is anti-Muslim is complete crap and Barnett withdrew it when Danby challenged him over that article. But since I work for Danby I can't get too deeply involved with edit wars. Adam 03:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Christine Milne

Oops! I knew that.. with the new parliament being sworn in this week, I thought I would go through a few and update them, and although I knew about senators not starting until July.. it must have slipped through my mind today! -- Chuq 23:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom

Thanks for the support! Even if you can't vote, though, you can still make an endorsement. 172 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anderson

I have stated what happened. You are entitled to your opinions but you cannot impose them on the articles. Adam 00:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You edits were clearly argumentative and intended to be supportive of your view that Anderson is innocent. I think he is innocent too, but an article of this length can only state briefly what happened. If you want to write Bribery allegations against John Anderson you can expand on the details there. Adam 01:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Famous Melburnians

The whole point of the "famous Melburnians" section is that it's people whose fame has stood the test of time. People know who Barry Humphries and Germaine Greer are now, several decades on after they became well known. Whether the same will hold for Missy Higgins in 20 years is very uncertain; if we put her in the list, we may as well put every up-and-coming celebrity in, which will result in a list full of forgotten nobodies in a few years.

If she's still famous in 10 years, by all means, put her back in.

Acb 15:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Danby

He is viewed by Muslims as anti-Muslim. Your quarrel is with the Muslims, not with me. When I cite quotes from Muslim organizations who regard Danby as anti-Muslim, I am simply reporting a fact. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only way to deal with the LaRouche cultists who are infesting Wikipedia with their garbage is to revert on sight. Unfortunately the people who run Wikipedia are too weak to defend their own project, so we can but try to do it for them.Adam 01:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Semites often find that kind of thing funny. Adam 23:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Members of Parliament

While it was helpful to have the Senate linked, it's not helpful to have a sidebar that overlaps with the table and looks utterly terrible at 800x600 pixels. While it might look okay at larger sizes, there's simply not enough space. It's better to have only the footer than to have overlapping tables that look as ugly as all hell and make us look like we're incompentent at table design. Ambi 13:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I gather your screen is not set at 800x600 then (which, particularly on older computers, is a default). It's set to be right aligned - its a sidebar. Sidebars don't go down the bottom. That's almost as bad. Ambi 13:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's kind of ugly, but I can see the function, as long as it's centred instead of right-aligned. If you can fix that, and if you're prepared to go back and add it in all the pages back to 1990, with matching Senate links, then fine. Is that okay with you? Ambi 13:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They're looking good now, but can you please make sure to change the links when you add them to pages? The 1996-1998 page has the same links as the 1998-2001 page. Ambi 02:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your Senate year details from? Ambi 02:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But you've used the same years as the HoR for 1990-1996, and different years to the HoR in more recent years. This may well be right, but I'm a little curious. Ambi 02:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - that'll make it a bit easier for me to keep these updated as I create new pages. :) Ambi 03:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused, I'm sorry. Would the Senate that was sitting at the start of 1984 have been sitting since 1981, or since the 1983 double-dissolution? Ambi 02:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky

Hi Xtra, I understand you're one of the editors who has expressed concern about the editing of the LaRouche activists, particularly Herschelkrustofsky, and the insertion of LaRouche POV into Australian articles.

If you have time, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision? Herschelkrustofsky has initiated a query of the Arbitration Committee for clarification of their ruling about LaRouche activisim in Wikipedia. I agree that clarification is needed, because I feel the wording of the ruling was unclear and has left loopholes that the LaRouche activists are exploiting. I have therefore written up a long response to Herschelkrustofsky's query and have requested clarification from the Committee on specific points. I wondered whether you'd be prepared to comment on the page. I've also let Adam and Ambi know about this. If you don't want to comment, don't worry about it, but I thought I'd let you know because I feel this may be an opportunity to resolve some of the problems these people have been causing. If the Arb Comm thinks I am the only person experiencing a problem with them, they may not take the issue seriously. Many thanks, Slim 03:24, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Liberal

Yes, I know, which is why neo-liberal is somewhat clearer and less ambiguous. AndyL 23:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Adam 04:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removal of John Howard external links

Could you please provide reasons for removal of the links.

These links are provided for informational purposes and very much relate to John Howard. It is silly to pretend that John Howard's period as Prime Minister have not been without dissent, these links are examples of this dissent. One link is satirical, the other straight journalism.

I cannot see why these links should be removed. They are relevant to the subject. --Wm 03:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

pcpcpc talk page

You asked me to look at the talk page policies. Here is one of them:

Can I blank my talk page whenever I want?

There's no hard-and-fast rule that says you can't, however many people will suspect that you are trying to hide something or ignore other contributors if you do it too often. Most users do archive their talk pages periodically to a personal subpage -- either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation

I am quite happy to live with this suspicion. I am not here to make friends; to put up with abuse from Giano; or to listen to lectures from you. I am here to contribute to a valuable public project. I found that the contributions to my talk page were an obstacle to this, so I posted a message that I don't want to chat about anything but articles, which are the only reason to value Wikipedia. Passive users of Wikipedia outnumber regular contributors by a margin of thousands to one and a correspondingly more important to me.Philip 02:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

more talk

Hello, I am also a supporter of Isreal and I also think people should use less fossil fuel. My neighbor is also from Melbourne. DSLdanv

Ferris vacancy

Ferris was elected at the 1996 election, but the validity of her election was challenged on the grounds that she had not resigned her position as a staff member for another senator until after she had nominated, and was therefore possibly ineligible under the "office of profit under the Crown" provision in the Constitution. To avoid the possibility of being declared ineligible, she resigned her place, and the South Australian Parliament then appointed her to her own casual vacancy. Adam 05:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Referendums/a

I think you're right: when talking about questions (as opposed to the occasions in which they're asked), 'referenda' is correct and 'referendums' is not, and I was indeed in error in a couple of edits which you've corrected. But unless we add a grammatical note, I think the two words will cause ongoing confusion to readers; maybe change 'referenda' to simply 'questions' to avoid this? --Calair 03:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I obtained permission to quote directly from that document, as noted on the talk page. --Swamp Ig 01:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Police edits

i dont know if your are aware, but you deleted the police page. be carefull with your edits. Xtra 13:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely I din't mean to. And I've no idea how could it happen. Anybody has? Web experts? Cause this is not the first time when I'm accused in misterious deleting. AlexPU

Separation of church and state

Response: I respect your right to revert my edits, and will not seek to re-establish them - for the time being. With regards to your comments, I believe you have largely misinterpreted my changes, but perhaps this is more an indictment on me. Firstly, redirect or not, Commonwealth of Australia still does take you to the Australia page. Because the section, overall, was discussing the Constitution, and, at Australia’s first mention, the very establishment of the nation, the official style seemed appropriate and, in fact, obligatory.

Secondly, funding of private schools (which I attended personally) does remain a contentious policy, as evidenced in the last election where division occurred over ALP private-school funding arrangements. However, perhaps this edit was un-necessary, given that is more concerned with politics than the topic of the article.

Thirdly, I never stated that Australia was a secularist country, I wrote: “secularism is not absolute”. By and large, Australia is secular, or at least more-so than other English-speaking nations. There are several different meanings of secularism, and you seem not to understand this. The separation of church and state is both a secularist concept and principle. Therefore, those countries where church and state are separate could broadly be considered secular. By stating that secularism is not absolute, I am pretty much affirming your statement that “Australia has a stable separation, religion is still welcome”. Also, I did not write that there were “conflicting laws”, I wrote that there were contradictions still existing in the legal system. To identify them all would be too time-consuming and, frankly, boring. But some examples include: mentions of God in the Constitution; religious oaths that public servants and citizens must swear where no atheist alternative exists (and there are still a few); and, technically, Australia’s association with the Queen, who is legally required to be Anglican, and must serve as head of the Church of England – a direct contradiction of the separation of church and state.

And finally, there is no way for you to know how many Parliamentarians attend the prayer service, or whether those who do attend are actually there for the service or convenience (given Parliament usually begins straight afterwards). Thus, I changed the absolutist “almost all” to “many”, which can be interpreted as the reader wishes.

So, whilst noting your concerns, my edits were minimal, and maybe in the future, you could examine changes in more detail before you revert them. My only intentions were to make the information more accurate and informative.--Cyberjunkie Talk 09:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I apologise if I seemed presumptuous; I did not intend to be, only to point out things you might not have considered. I am delighted that you are also interested, and learned, in the Australian Constitution: it wouldn’t be a bad thing if many more Australians were. Your “compromise” is very acceptable, save the last few sentences.

Perhaps this is to your liking:

While attendance at the prayer service is optional, many Members of Parliament attend them. It is often seen as a paradox that a government firmly based on secular values, is still, in many ways, involved with religion. However, government has not been impaired, and respect for the freedom of, and non-interference with, religion may be one reason why Australian politics is far less religiously oriented than in other countries, like the U.S. --Cyberjunkie 12:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)