User talk:Xtra/Archive3

WorkChoices

In answer to what you had to say.

Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.

This is from the ILO Convention 98 at Article 4. Australian Workplace Agreements undermine the ability of unions and workers collectively to bargain collexctively. Under WorkChoices where everyone is on an AWA unions cannot even go into a workplace. Our national conditions are not as such to say that collective agreements must be overlooked. Even America has enforceable collective bargaining rights and it is supposedly the richest country in the world with near full employment (even if millions are working poor).

The full development and utlisation of voluntary negotiations cannot occur when unions are threatened with huge fines for even daring to put in clauses regulating matters such as labour hire employees and the use of AWAs. Indeed the Howard government is interfering deliberately so that even if workers and bosses do agree that individual contracts cannot be used, this will lead to fines for the union and the boss.

The ILO is currently hearing about Australian laws and recently passed judgement on the current Workplace Relations Act 1996. Look at [1]. You can note that whilst the Committee here seems to not take either side, it is largely premised on the situation of people having choice between an individual contract or collective bargaining. As stated: The Committee noted the Government’s statement that there was an extensive system of collective bargaining and that individual negotiation was not given priority over collective bargaining. The same cannot be said for WorkChoices

>> Xtra, I really wish you knew what you were talking about. As the law currently stands, people can be told that if they do not sign an AWA then they do not get the job. Where workplaces operate entirely on AWAs it is not by staff members' choice but often because companies have forced all new employees to sign and existing staff have either been pushed or jumped.

At The Warehouse the company made its entire workforce "redundant" and said that to work for its "new" company staff would have to sign AWAs. This was under the current law.

I do not argue that people should not be able to choose whether to work on an AWA, despite my despisal for them. I believe, however, that people should have a genuine choice between an AWA or a collective agreement if they want it. I used to work at Video Ezy and saw first hand how new staff members had to sign an AWA or not the job. The AWAs paid $2 less per hour than what I earnt and had no penalties for weekend work. The people on AWAs often wondered where the choice was.

It is convenient to fall back and use the word interpretation so I will tell you what. When the ILO finds the laws in contravention of Convention 98 then I will change the article to say that is what the International Labour Organisation believes about Howard's laws. People will then draw their own conclusions.

Oh and working for a union I can tell you that we have many members on AWAs - it was never their choice to be on one but they have been forced: sign the AWA or no job. So it is not a choice between "being union" or an AWA. Most people on AWAs (particularly those in non-skilled and many of our members in rural areas) had no choice. (unsigned comments by user:Dankru)

>>I can see why PSYCH got shitty at you. I offered a compromise and you call me arrogant. How dare you.

If a staff member steals and it can be proved then they should be fired, of course. Not knowing the facts of the case I can hardly comment on it. All I can say is that if employers follow procedure then firing people is not difficult. Too often employers change the rules mid-stream and wonder why they get into problems.

I am going to leave it at that because convincing people that productivity won't mean more money for everyone is pointless. You think it will be fair when unions and workers have no power to collectively bargain so there is no point. Dankru 06:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greens-related edits on 2004 Federal Election article

Xtra, you reverted my edits on Family First getting elected on 2004 Federal Electionwith the following comment:

rvt. the greens only got 3% when Bob Brown was elected (quota being ~15%)

Why did you remove this? Your specified reason has got nothing to do with the information I added, which is of considerable interest to many political commentators, and rank and file members of the ALP. Peter Campbell 04:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Brown has always got a lot more votes than Stephen Fielding in every election he has contested, so your comparison is not appropriate. In the 2001 Federal Election Bob Brown got 8.68% of the Senate primary votes in Tasmania. Stephen Fielding got 1.77% in 2004! More analyis can be added, I don't see this as a reason for excluding any information sourced from Antony Green. Who is crying about preference deals? I don't think emotive language like that is appropriate. Peter Campbell 06:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St Kilda Rd

No I don't, but I can easily take some. I do have some very old images in Cooper's History of St Kilda, which I can scan if that would be useful. Adam 10:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald Sun

When an article is part of the official name, it should be included in the article title (see, for example, The Guardian, The Lord of the Rings, etc.). As the article itself used the definite article, and the link that I checked also used it, I renamed the article; if that was wrong, you should either have approached me to explain and ask me to rename it, or have gone through the proper renaming process; never move pages by cutting and pasting. If you can't move a page yourself, make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howard

I see we nearly managed 24 hours without John Howard being vandalised. (Is that a record?)

In recognition of this great event, I'm proposing a bit of a cleanup of the article, and as you are the closest thing on Wikipedia that I know of to an Australian conservative, I'd appreciate your input.

I've made some notes on paper and put down a summary of my thoughts at [2]. I'd welcome your comments now, or equally, you can wait till I've had a go and then pick up from there.

Regards, Ben Aveling 10:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You make that sound... ominous. Oh well. Be bold and all that. :-)

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Xtra, thanks for your support on my RfA. The final count was 46/0/0. It meant alot to get the support of great Aussie editors like yourself. I hope I'll live up to your faith in me in my use of the mop and bucket. Please accept this wikithanks as a token of my gratitude ;) --bainer (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sturmgrenadier]

hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

It seems that I've got a new IP address again. I am User:Zordrac and just a few hours ago it said that I had a different IP address (this one, which it still gives me when I sign). It seems to cycle around a bit. Sorry about that. I was a bit annoyed about getting a message of vandalism warning on a talk page when I wasn't even logged in. There's a reason why I don't want to log in - because I am just looking, and have no intention to contribute. I stopped contributing on Christmas Day. I've quit. Anyway, well, you left me that annoying message, so yeah. Just thought I'd write. See if this still has the same IP address now or has Wikipedia gone crazy and displayed the wrong IP again? 203.122.203.208 05:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and it is pointing me to this IP: User_talk:203.20.229.24 As far as I know, I've never been assigned this IP, so Wikipedia's software is stuffing up. Its annoying. You wouldn't be able to correct it so that I don't get the annoying "New messages" message, would you? 203.122.203.208 05:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting it on the User page rather than the talk page - I hate that "New messages" thing when I'm not logged in :). Yes, I agree that they were vandalising things. I guess its just a software glitch that I got the message, and probably out of your control. No worries. 203.122.203.208 20:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VicSC

Thanks muchly for doing that - it'll give me plenty of topics to work on for quite a while. In the meantime, I'm going around trying to at least do the current judges for every other state and territory, but I can't seem to find a list of those for NSW. Any chance you might know where we could find them? Ambi 00:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for edit - Chapter III Court

That was a major error -_- thanks for correcting it.--Sumple 23:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting addition

It seems that Wikipedia is mixed up again. Someone has banned me (User:Zordrac) in confusion with User:Internodeuser. I am mystified as to why the confusion. Please can you see if you can amend this for me. Whilst I have quit anyway and obstensively don't care, I don't much like false accusations. 203.122.230.206 03:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On adding warnings for vandalism

Hi Xtra, When you tag a user's page for vandalism, it's usually best to use subst, eg {{subst:test3}}, not {{test3}}. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no difference in appearance when the page is viewed, but if someone edits the page, they see the expanded message, not the macro. It's a slight saving on the load on wikipedia, but the main reason I bothered to mention it is the difference it makes if the person tries to reply to the message. If they see "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." that's something they can reply to. But {{test3}} is likely to confuse. I think that if the person is a genuine newbie they're more likely to reply positively to the expanded message than to the macro. See also Wikipedia:Template substitution. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremism

It's perfectly possible to hold extremist views. In my personal opinion, Joyce has plenty of extremist views, but I also understand quite clearly the point that statement was making. I really don't think it's that extraordinary say that someone opposes extremism when they, despite being devoutly religious, note that it isn't really appropriate to be burning down mosques and such as "strongholds of Satan". Ambi 10:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

If you don't mind, would you be able to tell me what your thoughts are in relation to liberal (not the party) bias in Australian political articles? I haven't made my own mind up yet but am quite concerned about a number of articles and their content. Thankyou, - G^t 14:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnaby Joyce

G'day Xtra,

I agree with what you and ambi have to say. There's nothing extremist about being an anti-abortion Catholic. But this is an edit war, and in edit wars it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong; you're all acting in good faith, and none of you are vandalising. In such circumstances, page protection is appropriate: edit wars are considered harmful to Wikipedia. Posting a message to my talkpage saying (in essence) "I'm right, and I want you to unprotect so I can continue my edit war" is not going to get the page unprotected. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted!

[3] enochlau (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Shorten

You might like to intervene here. I don't think I can get involved further with this idiot. Adam 02:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice man--an 'idiot' -charming. Do I have put up with that?

As for wikipedia --"Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all differing views on a subject"--. As it stands its biased and unbalanced. The opinion of some journalist carries no weight. The Age is falling over itself promoting this man. Adam Carr is obviously in the same faction (or whatever they get up to waiting until its there turn to have power). I'll keep on removing such piffle and protect wikipedias sense of proportion. Personpersonperson 02:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Crimes Commission

Thanks for keeping an eye on this troll-bait article. Tom e r ^talk 09:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche edits

I see the LaRouchies are saying you are a John Howard staffer now. Well, maybe you are - if so, I'll see you around next week. Adam 03:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Council provinces

No, a two-member constituency is a constituency in which voters elect two members, either proportionately or by "first two past the post", as in the old House of Commons double-member boroughs. The Victorian Council provinces are single-member constituencies: at each election, they elect one member each. The only difference is that they elect them for overlapping terms, so that each member serves two lower house terms before coming up for re-election. To call them two-member constituencies is seriously misleading. Adam 12:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "What you would call the states in the Senate would then depend on what type of election it is." I'm not sure I understand this, but if you are asking, are the states multi-member constituencies for the purposes of Senate elections, the answer is yes. At a half-Senate election, each state elects six Senators by proportional representation, and each territory elects two Senators. Adam 06:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At a half-Senate election, each state could be described as a six-member constituency because it elects six Senators by proportional representation. At a double dissolution each state would be a 12-member constituency. Adam 09:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help, could you explain something to me please?

Hello, I'm not a new user, been an on-off anon user for a couple of years, but could you explain something to me?

I have a complaint about Alkivar who not only blocked me from editing pages, but he also didn't even explain to me why he blocked me. This seems very rude and would be off putting to any new users. He has also blocked his user talk page from being edited so I can't ask why he blocked me. But I suspect he didn't like my revert on Talk:Brassiere, where I reverted his deletion of someone else's comment, then did it again with the comment "rv, indefblocked users dont get to post period." 203.164.184.115 12:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content

It's not vandalism to remove an image which shouldn't be on this site. I'm not a troll and I know what I'm talking about in this instance. Use of the parliamentary crest has extremely strict rules, and whenever it is used there is an implication that the content is authorised by the Parliament - clearly not the case here. If you really want to debate this I can put the entire text of the parliamentary policy here for you to have a look at.

Crest

I have no idea what the legal status of the crest is, and I have given up trying to understand copyright issues here. Adam 12:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GCL

GCL mean the Grand Companion of the Order of Logohu which is the highest award in the new Papua New Guinea honours System. There is a link about it on Michael Jeffery's page in the section listed "Honours" Dowew 01:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Kennett

Good show! Good to see someone agreed with my criticism. That sentance implied that Kennett's actions were in the spirit of economic liberalism and not an effort to avert state insolvency. Also might I congratulate you on your political views Sir, it seems that you are truly enlightened! I presume you are relatively young (being a student) so it is refreshing to see a young-conservative-monarchist. Here I was thinking I was the only one. Gullivers travels.

reverting Australia national football team

I (somewhat) agree that the page should be at Australia national soccer team, but you have intentionally reverted Australia national football team to Grant65's version of the dab page. If you check the history, his edit summary was (Changed to disambig page, as per discussion on talk page.). There was no discussion and definitely no consensus on this issue, so I would appreciate it if you would replace the redirect you removed. I have not reverted it myself as I am not in the habit of starting edit wars or breeching WP:POINT. Unless you can show me the discussion which took place to replace the redirect, (note that the RfD discussion returned no consensus) please revert the change. Thankyou. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where the discussion and consensus is please. In fact, here Grant65 said "Well put, Jiminy and Cyber" after Jiminy said that Australia national football team should redirect straight to Australia national soccer team. There is soemthing of a discussion here but no consensus was reached, and if anything, most people (4 - me, cursive, ben and jiminy) were agreeing with leaving the redirect as is, and only 1 (Grant65) was against it. Grant65 has yet to reply to my request on why he made the change in the first place either. Just a simple wikilink to the page where consensus was reached will be fine, thankyou. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 02:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

You guys are the ones reverting everything I do. I am entering information and you destroying it. So you are the ones who should be blocked! Stop threatening me! I am not Arab.--tequendamia 14:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

point taken re changes

your point taken regarding changes to state wa liberal leaders.i'll accept they were a little immature.i shall reconsider my wording and be back when i have thought about it and understand the rules properly and follow the correct procedures.my appoligies and thanks ,scott

Revert Melbourne

I see you reverted by last edit to the Melbourne article with the summary "rvt unnecessary change". I note that Melbourne did not rank first in the survey, but tied for first with Vienna and Vancouver -- there is a difference. The article should strive for accuracy, not civic boosterism. If you disagree, we should take it to the talk page and seek consensus. Skeezix1000 01:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are seeking a change. You should seek consensus. Tied for first is exactly the same as ranked first. Xtra 02:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but fine. Skeezix1000 02:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Tied for first is not the same. You are omitting important information about the ranking (not that I think this subjective ranking should have a prominent place in the article anyway). - Randwicked Alex B 02:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtra, I am wondering why you suggested trivial changes should be taken to the talk page? The talk page is for major changes that could upset some people. Trivial changes should be tackled by being bold. - Randwicked Alex B 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Costello

I reverted to Garglebutt's previous version, AFAICS. It may not have been perfect, but it was much less hagiographic than its predecessor. Ambi 07:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[4]

Australia Football

Wow, so you were "insulted and highly offended" bo hoo . I and many others were offended when a number of small minded people, who were not maintaining the football pages decided that the name needed changing. Your claims of a "consensus" being reached is also totally false. A number of the people who were actually *editing* and *improving* the pages got sick of arguing with the small minded people on this site and left. This is in no way a "consensus". Anyone who wants to move the pages back to where they *should* be has my full support. Tancred 02:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk about proper Australian usage, Aussie rules is "Aussie Rules". perhaps I should start changing all of their pages? The correct name for what you call Soccer is Football. It's the official name of the game, and should be the name here.Tancred 05:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean McVeigh

Hello Xtra, I notice you say you are looking at the Dean McVeigh page. I have only a passing interest in this issue but am very interested in the free speech implications of shutting down internet sites using criminal contempt of court proceedings. I am concerned too that this article should not be deleted. In a sense it seems that Wikipedia by disclosing these events can play a role in drawing attention to what seems to me a very important issue that effects many more than those involved with McVeigh personally. I would encourage you to consider this. 138.217.97.27 14:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the same subject, could you please point out where the problem areas are in the article, the discussion about it would probably much improve the article but as it stands the notice on its own just makes it look like a mess. Thanks Userfreespeech 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Vaile

I don't remember anything in the MoS about styles being left above the photo. Could you point me to that please, if I have missed it? JSIN 07:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems illogical, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), which states that Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities, including but not limited to The Right Honourable for being a Member of the Privy Council, shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper, to have styles above the photo but not anywhere else. In any case, it's not "Hon Mark Vaile", it's "The Hon Mark Vaile". JSIN 07:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC) '[reply]

Dean McVeigh

You are repeatedly deleting sources, including links to primary documents. Why? 203.153.200.204 08:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly you are making some very contentious edits and without justifying your position. Why? 203.153.200.204 08:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that blogs cannot be a good source. It depends what it is referencing. If it is quoting from someone's blog their opinion, I see that as valid. If the blog contains primary documents, that is also valid. Why are you adopting this attitude, it seems very strange? 203.153.200.204 09:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean McVeigh

I have edited the article removing unverified stuff and add verifiable material. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 10:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to reconsider your ongoing restoration of grossly defamatory material 59.167.73.44 12:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once again strongly urge you to reconsider your ongoing restoration of grossly defamatory material. I think the article needs a substantial re-write to reflect the reality of the situation. I am not directly affected but those that are have already sued in defamation and I don't doubt will do it again. 59.167.73.44 12:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defamous? I thought you were a law student. The generally accepted term is defamatory. For a start the assertion that someone was "reported" to the Director of Public Prosecutions for making a threat implies that someone made the threat which was loudly denied at the time. Did the DPP take action against the issuer of these threats? If they had do you think that might have reported too. The defamatory implication is clear. There are many more and are very obvious. I suggest a brush up on Torts or Media Law, both very interesting areas, the former you probably should have covered already if you're in your final year. 59.167.73.44 13:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is fully referenced, to sources that mysteriously have no links and with purported summaries that are wrong in any event. I cannot tell you the specifics but I suspect when I alert those who do, it may be too late. What I know is that McVeigh's Liquidation - despite much public fanfare of the kind you are referencing - is running into major problems. He is not proceeding against four corporate defendants, he has settled with five other parties for amounts in the few thousands not the millions claimed, has one party who is bankrupt and another two who refuse to settle even for a few thousand. This fact (which I cannot reference to The Age because they have written about it) does not suggest that there was very much in McVeigh's allegations at all. I know one of the people involved and am very alarmed about the whole situation, especially the attempts to shut down websites criticial of McVeigh. I would urge that you only use sources that can actually be verified so we can agree on their content, you have already removed one serious error and there appear to be several more. 59.167.73.44 13:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you know a lot about the subject, that's great. I would be happy to identify myself if you are, it's no big deal. Everyone on Wikipedia seems to be anonymous, which is I think a cause of many problems. The situation with the MUSU liquidation, as you know if you're familiar with it, is apparently that McVeigh is in all sorts of trouble. I'm not suggesting his article should say that because that's just scuttlebutt but I assume you are familiar with the same talk. What he was thinking spending nearly $3 million of taxpayer and creditor money on chasing impoverished defendants can only be speculated about. Anyway, I look forward to discussing the matter further. Defamous is not a commonly used word in legal circles, trust me on that. 59.167.73.44 13:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked your "grammer" (sic) reference and in the circumstances will refrain. It's getting too late perhaps for humour. On a serious note, as you would be aware having completed Torts by now, if you claim that "allegations" of "theft and fraud" occurred, you had better provide some evidence of same. Please do so before restoring some very serious allegations. McVeigh has sued various defendants and has made no claim of theft or fraud. So your assertion to the contrary is interesting. Do you know more than he? If so please share. 59.167.73.44 14:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted original documents from the McVeigh article. They are clearly relevant.59.167.73.44 02:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bryant AfD

You remarked in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Max_Bryant that Max Bryant was "deleted last week" & the article was speedy deleted. However, only that speedy deletion shows up in Special:Log&type=delete&page=Max_Bryant. Were you thinking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximillian Bryant (for Maximillian Bryant), which hasn't yet closed? --Karnesky 05:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landeryou

Xtra, I agree that Darren Ray's edits were poor and that most of them should have been reverted. I'm a little concerned however that you reverted them on the grounds that they were by an interested party. I don't think there is a rule against interested parties editing articles - if there were, it would be impossible to enforce and would cause endless conflict. I recall there is no rule against people editing articles about themselves, and I know a number of politicians are now doing just that. Since we allow anonymous edits, we will have to live with this. I think edits should be judged on merit regardless of their author. Adam 23:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sercombe and Shorten

As you know, I no longer edit Australian politician articles. Robert Sercombe has today withdrawn from the Maribyrnong preselection, and Bill Shorten will therefore be preselected unopposed. You might like to edit the articles accordingly. Adam 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landeryou article

Am happy to deal with you, even though you are an anonymous user who may well be an interested party. Please explain your changes so we can live in peace and harmony. You could always call for a chat but I think you are acting unwisely in removing all my changes regardless of merit. Most of them serve to update and clarify the false claims in the article which was clearly written by someone with an axe to grind. I would welcome you actually revealing your identity here so that we can *keep it real.* Otherwise your edits will be seen in the context of someone too afraid to reveal themselves. DarrenRay 03:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your name? Don't be shy now. DarrenRay 11:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why anonymous authors on here are given any credibility. You could be anyone and frankly that's just a big con. DarrenRay 12:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're an anonymous person, you are only accountable for what you write should someone take legal action, which would - as you should know - flush out your anonymity reasonably quickly. That's part of the reason why I don't think you should bother. Please reveal yourself. (so to speak) DarrenRay 12:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you end up not a Liberal but a Socialist Alternative lifestylist, then I would feel terribly deceived. DarrenRay 12:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no Liberal who is defensive of Dean McVeigh's activities so I regard your identity with great scepticism. The only ones who briefly like him were those who enjoyed his shouting of drinks, all billed to the Liquidation of course. And even they grew more and more disgusted as the $2.7 million in professional fees bills mounted. So I very much doubt you are active in the Liberal Club or are a Liberal at all. Forgive my scepticism but you're anonymous so I'm entitled I think to be very sceptical. DarrenRay 12:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup in March

I see that you are listed as a participant in the WikiProject Melbourne. If you are a Melbourne resident I would appreciate your views on the suggested Meetup in March . Please give some indication of your interest, or otherwise, in the idea. Even a simple "No thanks" with your user name would be welcome and assist in assessing the level of support for a meetup. Thank you.. Cuddy Wifter 06:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am keen to come along to a Meetup, would be great to meet up with Xtra. DarrenRay 02:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

It seems to let me in again - thanks for helping me out though! michael ^talk 06:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user

Yeah, yeah and I'm related to Megan Gale (by marriage), Kate Moss, Gizelle et al. They want me. If I was anonymous and you didn't know me (or more likely know of me) then you might believe me. Reveal yourself or continue at your lowly status of anonymity. Sup to you. DarrenRay 11:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right about the role of masters/registrars who loosely preside at Liquidator's Examinations. It's the Liquidator's show, just happens to be held at the court. The judicial official's role is minimal, as legally prescribed. DarrenRay 11:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you coming to the meet up ? Really looking forward to seeing you. DarrenRay 12:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll draft up a paragraph on Abbott's racial comments on the Talk page, another user put up the whole Hansard extract which enables a more comprehensive treatment I think. I'm keen for the reference to stay as I think it was a notable thing for a federal Minister to say but I equally I am keen to work with my Liberal brothers and sisters to ensure that reference is totally in context, fair to Abbott and with the whole story about whether he withdrew the statement or apologised or whatever. Megan Gale sends her regards. DarrenRay 06:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your most recent edit is fine. DarrenRay 06:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, step off. DarrenRay 06:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Barendse is in need of serious assistance. The article - inter alia - accuses him of being elected under a cloud and various other nonsense. Might be worth taking a look. DarrenRay 08:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henk

A St Kilda branch member of no factional affiliation. ALP candidate for Prahran in 1985. Now a jazz promoter (see here). It's a nuisance challenge which the Left is not supporting. Adam 09:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting relevant information from the UMSU article. Showing the volume of monies paid to the those elected so few is highly relevant information and is undisputed. If it is disputed by anyone, I'd be surprised. DarrenRay 01:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I didn't revert it despite my desire to do so. I merely put an indicator on there of the factual errors and bias in the article. I have also removed one obvious factual error which I assume is not controversial. The rest we can discuss in Talk. Btw, if you're a bona fide Liberal, I'm Spiderman DarrenRay 08:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how that quote is relevant to an article about McVeigh? DarrenRay 08:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you have persistently restored about someone else's blog. Please remove it, it is clearly not relevant. And btw, I think you'll find you are in danger of breaching the same rule, so take care comrade. DarrenRay 08:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the relevance of the quote you have now restored on multiple occasions. I don't think it's *throwing my weight around* to ask a reasonable question. I am happy to engage in a serious discussion over these issues. You, it seems, are not, at least at this stage. DarrenRay 08:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We may be talking at cross purposes here. There is no dispute about whether the Master said it, although I wasn't there and haven't seen the transcript of it. It's the relevance of that to an article about McVeigh that I am struggling with. And I invite you to specifically address that. No doubt many people would say Landeryou's blog is misleading (mainly those criticised in it) but that is relevant to Landeryou's article not to McVeigh's. Am I wrong? If so how? DarrenRay 08:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really block Ray, considering that I've done a fair bit of reversion of his edits. That said, it's probably worth taking the issue to WP:ANI, where I'm sure some uninvolved party will be able to deal with it. Thanks for dealing with these student politicians, anyway - I've been sick all week, so I haven't been able to keep an eye on them myself. Ambi 04:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McVeigh

You have misdirected you message I think. I am not vandalizing anything. It is "Garglebutt" who is deleting a whole page --2006BC 08:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it looks like this is a long way from over and we will waste more time trying to maintain NPOV rather than getting on with real editing. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed at you attacking Alex Chan. I suggested he take a look at Wikipedia, something he was quick to point out. He is perfectly capable of reaching his own conclusions and contributing without you attacking him. Unlike you, he's not anonymous or pseudonymous and as a result has far more credibility in my eyes than you until you actually disclose who you are and reveal your interest in the subject matter. DarrenRay 15:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Politovandals", please stop throwing insults around. It is pointless. --2006BC 23:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And who decides what is vandalism? It's defined as any edit you don't like... --2006BC 00:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article and don't see what you're talking about. I haven't vandalised by any measure. --2006BC 01:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you have read it, can you please point out to me where the vandalism you allege occurred. Your insults and baseless accusations are very nasty. --2006BC 01:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done either. Your edits are 'good faith' but mine are 'bad faith', this is very childish. I have removed defamatory and irrelevant material. That simple. --2006BC 01:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between DarrenRay, 2006BC and others. You are being named as an involved party. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You have been involved in quite a bit of the conflict so I figured I'd give you an opportunity to provide input if you wished. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made my statement but if I've left anything out feel free to mention it. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lefty on campus

Do you reckon User:Lefty on campus could be the same person as User:PSYCH? Andjam 03:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing that made me think of the similarities was that both users used the rhetorical claim that silence of the other person means that they're in the right. Other things the two share in common is the topic of disputes, and a similar history of bad behaviour. There is also a motive for the creation of a sockpuppet, in that PSYCH is on parole. Are there any other similarities you can think of? Thanks, Andjam 04:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to have action taken? Thanks, Andjam 04:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean vice versa, right? Andjam 04:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Page Vandalism

Please do not vandalise my talk page. Very uncouth. Lefty on campus 03:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC) --.[reply]

Do you always delete pages you don't agree with? Please don't vandalise my user page, I will have to bring a claim against you. Lefty on campus 03:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC) --.[reply]

Protected userpage

Okay, I've protected Lefty's userpage to stop this budding pathetic edit war. Xtra, don't remove stuff from others' userpage after they've made it clear they don't want you to. Lefty, don't put stupid shit on your userpage that others will feel bound to remove. Personal attacks are not appropriate, and you'll be blocked if you keep it up. Edit warring over someone else's userpage is not appropriate, and you'll be blocked if you keep it up.

How's that sound? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, I used the same text for both your warnings. Give it another read, specifically the "personal attack" bit. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtra, I would suggest that you follow the fuddlemark's advice above about not getting into an edit war over a user page. Personal attack, or not, it's not worth getting into an edit war over it, and there are better ways of dealing with it, e.g. if something you regard as a personal attack is inserted again, post to WP:PAIN rather than revert war. In an edit/revert war, both sides do not look good, regardless of the content that's being argued over. Regards, MartinRe 10:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, please read meatball:DefendEachOther, which might help explain the rationale behind this. Regards, MartinRe 10:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my user page, and yes, I do understand it's hard not to get annoyed sometimes, but if you find yourself getting heated, take a break, go for a coffee, or whatever. It will help you collect your thoughts, wheras edit wars back and forth can only increase the tension on both sides. You may find that on your return another editor has made the change you were going to. You could also try my expermental 3D suggestion: "If you are finding that discussion over a dispute isn't working - delegate!" Instead of pointless to-ing and frow-ing, get outside assistance, e.g. Third opinion, admin help (vandalism, personal attacks) - but obviously be prepared that other might not always agree with you! I would also suggest that it might be a good idea to remove the link to the arbitration case, I know it's still valid for two more days, but as the user in question hasn't posted since July, it hardly seems worth the potential hassle to keep it on your front page. Regards, MartinRe 11:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MUSU

I've giving up on this for now until the POV vandals get themselves banned. I have raised an RFC for the article so hopefully some pressure will be brought to bear and put an end to the nonsense. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help

Bainer. Can you help me out with User:Lefty on campus and user:PSYCH who's one year personal attack parole is up. Thjey are harrassing me and making personal attacks against me, especially on User:Lefty on campus's user page. I have tried to have him stop and Mark Gallagher has told him to stop, but he keeps doing it. Xtra 00:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xtra, I'm having a look at this now, gimme a minute to look at the relevant pages. --bainer (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

G'day Xtra,

Lefty on campus (talk · contribs) has been blocked for placing and removing refusing to remove a blatant personal attack on his userpage. Sooner or later, he'll remove the attack, or he'll find himself blocked more and more often, and maybe even eventually up before ArbCom. It's out of your hands now, and any intervention you make — like, say, editing his user page after you've been asked not to by several people and even threatened with a block &mdsah; will only make you look bad. And, also, the whole "block" thing.

I've blocked you for three hours. It's a much shorter block than Lefty received, because you were provoked. However, please consider not edit warring on another's userpage. It is, indeed, "uncouth". Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Lefty can keep his bullshit about me and I get blocked for removing a blatant personal attack? Xtra 00:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please UNBLOCK me. This is a bullshit block for defending myself. Xtra 00:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xtra. I've been following this since I gave the 3O a few days ago. I know it's easier said than done, but please do relax. As you can see above, Lefty was blocked for not removing the personal attack, and you were blocked for editing warring over his user page. Both were justified in my view, but please note that your block was for "edit warring" - not for removing personal attacks or defending yourself. Several admins are involved at this point (I'm just an ordinary editor) and the best thing you can do is just let it run its course. If the personal attacks keep coming, they will be dealt with, it may be slow, but it will happen, but please don't keep edit warring, that will only make the process take longer, and you will likely get blocked again for no benefit. Regards, MartinRe 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Personal Attacks toward PSYCH

I'm replying to your message at WP:PAIN. If you absoluetly MUST have that link there, you may want to create a User subpage where you can list your diff links at. Most users won't be able to see it. Other than that, it's not a good idea to kick people while they're down. If they're not breaking their ArbCom restrictions, best leave them be. If you seriously think anybody is a sockpuppet of PSYCH, you could ask an admin with Checkuser status at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser, and see if they can determine so. LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 00:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I must. It is the easiest access, and at this point I am expecting a repeat performance and would like it on hand. Xtra 00:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSYCH has now filed a complaint at WP:PAIN that a link to your RfArb against him remains on your user page. I don't know any of the backstory here, but considering that case was closed over a year ago, it does seem like gloating to keep the link there. If you're really concerned that the behavior that triggered the RfArb last year will be repeated, there are ways (such as a subpage not linked to from your user page) that seem less like you're saying "Nyah, nyah, nyah!" Angr (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Xtra. As I was semi involved at the time via a 3O, I tried to fill in some of the background as I saw it on User_talk:Angr#PSYCH. Best of luck, regards, MartinRe 13:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal compromise

Thankyou, I appreciate the compromise on the Lib page with respects to mandatory detention. PSYCH 01:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Personal Attacks

What is going on with Lefty's user page? Why is what he's doing a personal attack? I think I may have a similar problem but I'm not sure. DarrenRay 01:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please fill me in on why you think Lefty is making personal attacks. I can be reached via email through my user page. Danny 01:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtra, one simple suggestion comes to mind: You are objecting to an old version of a page being linked to, but the current page is blank. Why not nominate it for speedy deletion as owner (WP:CSD#User_pages) so it's not there to be linked to at all? Regards, MartinRe 02:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am going to strongly urge you to remove the link to your arbitration case. No need to rub salt into the wound here, and it would make things run more smoothly for everyone. If you have any questions, feel free to email me. Danny 02:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that idea, (as I mentioned above a few days ago) - especially now that it is out of date. Regards, MartinRe 02:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to happen. It is a decission of the arbitration committee and I am not making any disparaging comments with it, just linking it for my own purposes. Creating another page just makes things less convinient. Xtra 03:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe when this stupid block runs out. I can't believe that after 18 months and 2,700 edits I get blocked for removing a personal attack. Xtra 02:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, you didn't get blocked for removing a personal attack, the block reason was edit warring. The edit warring might have been over a personal attack, but there is a difference. (like the difference between defending yourself, and beating an attacker to a pulp with a cricket bat :) PS, can you not edit your user page when blocked? Regards, MartinRe 03:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't kid yourself. Xtra 03:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I cant do what I want in the article space, then I wont do what others want in my user space .Xtra 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't deserve a block and you have my sympathy. Good on you for standing up for yourself with reason and shame on those who abuse their power. michael ^talk 03:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lefty on campus and PA

G'day Xtra,

I take it you mean he's put you up on WP:PAIN. Well, so what? Someone will come along, and either see that you're blameless (in which case, the notice will be scrapped), or that you done wrong (in which case, I have little sympathy).

As for Ben and Darren, the difference there is that you made your changes right under my nose. I didn't notice Ben and Darren's dirty work until after they'd stopped, so there was certainly no case of warring after being warned not to (on pain of a block). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football

Football has always been Rugby League to me. Always will be. It is to almost everyone I know from Sydney as well. To the southerners I have met, it is AFL. I am at odds about your comment "football is soccer". --Licinius 10:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say football is soccer? Xtra 11:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think when you get that far down the page it's well established which sport it is refering to. It's the same reasoning behind the International Football box and national Football teams. There is a disambig at the top of the page and in the title. What harm does it cause? Football (soccer) looks strange. I am resisting the temptation to change it to Soccer There's the real problem.

--Executive.koala 06:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Dear Xtra - thankyou for the feedback and we will stop linking - we created a page on the Centre for Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism which is not a commercial venture but it does not get picked up by search - hence our efforts?

regards

PICT

Reverting

If you're not reverting for fun, then why do you do it? Are you so fond of incorrect information? Or is it some kind of personal grudge against me? - Andre Engels 13:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you at least tell me which of the changes would need a reference? And if all of them, why don't you set the same standards for the previous editors of the page? I see not a single referenced fact in there. And quite a number of them are incorrect, which I tried to change, but you won't let me. - Andre Engels 14:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now? - Andre Engels 14:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm good enough to be reverted on sight, but not to get answers to my questions. Nice to know. - Andre Engels 12:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you might consider that I do my edits in good faith, and ask me for any specifics you think might be wrong instead of blindly reverting. Let's see whether you like that. - Andre Engels 18:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugs Galore

I left a long message for Sarah Ewart on her talk page about the Rugs Galore article. I hope you might take a look and perhaps collaborate on writing a better article, as it seems it will probably not be deleted. --2006BC 05:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Zondor

Hmm, I was completely out of the loop about his behaviour towards Ambi, which, reading up on it, was entirely inappropriate. It was also odd that he didn't simply revert the vandalism by User:ThePrankster to Australia, but I assume he may have just been confused about whether it was a hack or vandalism. However, the two incidents are unrelated except to the extent that he mightn't be as experienced with Wikipedia as others. --cj | talk 01:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

where have i vandalised? these are historical facts. what do u have against history? Tarins01 03:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is historical facts

I'm currently doing my Law degree. I have Honours in Arts specialising in Australian History. Aborigines in Tasmania were massacred as in numerous other places. Why are there so little Aborigines in Tasmania because they were resisting the Armies of the Church of England! Christianity became dominant once these Tasmanian Aborigines were annihilated.

Inflamatory

Historical truth that doesnt suit our white way of thinking is indeed inflamatory. but the truth does hurt. this is factual prose. i can give you numerous sources from academics if you wish?

Christianity in Australia

I had concerns about this article from the very start. It's now been made a redirect, but I'll continue to watch it. I'll also consider blocking User:Tarins01 - it looks like a clear case of 3RR. enochlau (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've observed this Tarins guy for 2 months now, and it's pretty obvious he is here to insert Islamic POV at the expense of all other religions. The Christianity article was created in the same way as Rugs Galore, basically. The "Islamic personalities" there is a list of notable islamic people, but Tarins only allows positive things about Islam (saying that terrorists (convicted and suspected) are "Australian criminals" not "muslims") while he previously stuck all these "jewish terrorist" tags around the place. See also the history of Keysar Trad and User talk:Gullivers travels.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Xtra, I'm fully supportive of your current conduct.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Senate

Thanks for the explanation.--Esprit15d 13:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Sliat 1981? Fine then

I was going to ask you why you don't spend more time fixing this guy's mess up. You know exactly what he's doing? --Executive.koala 11:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Xtra 11:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's changing every instance of Australia to Socceroos. Socceroos is not a country and is not the name of the team. Do you see Three Lions all through the English Football articles? He's been spoken to about it and while we’re at it has been asked repeatedly to sign his comments. He is a troll. You know this. Stop wasting my time. --Executive.koala 11:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Carr

I agree with you about the text delations, but I would support the removal of the current photo, which has been chosen to be unflattering and has been put there as a provocation. Adam 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No relation, thank god. Most Australian Carrs are Irish (orginally Cahir). We are Yorkshire Carrs (originally Danish Kjare). Adam 03:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis

It is a classic, in addition to being my favourite song ;). Keep up the top editing that I enjoy reading. michael ^talk 10:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Personal Attacks

To encourage centralised discussion, I will post a comment to WP:PAIN.--cj | talk 04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave is that you, it's me, Jesus. —This unsigned comment was added by 194.78.50.102 (talk • contribs).

Funny how I am being abused by anonimous editors now. Oh well. Must be another coincidence. Xtra 07:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a site where is we vandalize ya page, we get a free gmail account, invitations opened up again, so I'm doing it, nothing against you personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.32 (talk • contribs)

Whatever. Xtra 07:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Hi Xtra. Can I suggest that you wait a little while and see if vandalism does in fact occur. You may also want to consider what can be done to reconcile your differences with User:PSYCH, I notice that you were involved in an arbitration case with him previously so no doubt you are familiar with the steps to achieving dispute resolution.

If vandalisn does occur to your user page, if you need help with the dispute resolution process or anything else - please don't hesitate to contact me or another administrator. Cheers TigerShark 08:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: hmmmm

Yes, I see what you mean. I didn't really know what was happening, I just saw that your usertalk was replaced by some gobbledygook and reverted without knowing it wasn't a one-off sort of case. JSIN 10:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]