User talk:BogongMoth

User's own comments from 28 and 29 August

The Criticism para has been re-inserted. The previous editor's deletion on the grounds of potential libel is spurious. The entry complies with Australian defamation law, with the defences of truthful comment and valid literary criticism. Someone is being too precious. The previous editor who removed the entry on the grounds of bias is also being too precious, as the entries regarding Martin's support for Dr Holt's "microwave therapy" are entirely truthful and referenced. Martin falsely raised the hope of those suffering cancer and their families, for which he is being justly criticised.

In the meantime go to the NHMRC website announcing the release of their Report at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/news/media/rel05/holt.htm

Finally, who is protecting Martin from IP address 58.172.129.216?

Welcome

Hello BogongMoth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:

How to edit a page

Editing tutorial

Picture tutorial

How to write a great article

Naming conventions

Manual of Style

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, try the Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up!

--Golden Wattle ^talk 09:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Nairn edit

Hi - I have removed the paragraph you inserted in the Gary Nairn article. If you wish to reinsert the content, please cite a reliable source in support of the assertion. I checked and could find no news article as of this evening refering to the incident.--Golden Wattle ^talk 09:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for reinserting and providing a refernce. FYI I have formatted the ref to use a template and inline citation as follows:

<ref>{{cite news |first= Gillian |last= Bradford |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= Govt puts up fight in Parliament|url= http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2035767.htm |work= Radio National: PM |publisher= Australian Broadcasting Corporation |date= [[2007-09-17]]|accessdate= 2007-09-19|quote = "transcript was added here"}}</ref>

It helps to produce a formatted ref with relevant information - ie who, when, where, ... I have removed the transcript from the body of the article - it can after all be found in the transcript and is tangential to Nairn himself. See {{WP:UNDUE]] for guidance on this. I did however add the transcript as part of the referenceRegards --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - since Nairn is a member of the Liberal party, it is hardly encyclopaedicc that he supported Liberal party legislative change.--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR advice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Golden Wattle ^talk 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]