User talk:Xtra

Hi, this is Xtra's Talk page. Please leave comments below.

User talk:Xtra/Archive1

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)

---

I won't know if I've gotten in until Tuesday, but the Canberra Times said that the entry score for law didn't go up this year, which makes me fairly confident. Ambi 05:33, 13 Jan 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 Wikipedia:No personal attacks). A simple attack isn't enough to warrant blocking (see Wikipedia: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've actually put in an official protest against Xtra (about his misleading tersm for the Liberals), and alerted many good "liberal" blogs/sites about yor move to propaganda, so expect a few peope to start changing this post beside me. It's good to know you're not about truth anymore, but lies and misinformation. Just what the liberal party usually stands for (WMDs, children overboard, etc). It's good to see people like "Mark" here on your side. So much for honesty, and non-partisan, huh? Great Job.

comments by anon. struck out by me. to be removed from page as a threat. Xtra 04:15, 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)

I suggest resolving the situation by incorporating into the article the disagreement over whether the party is conservative or neo-liberal. Excellent point, there has been little discussion on the issue, and "consensus" cannot exist with the beliefs of only one user. A note about the "controversy" welcomes open discussion, so this issue can be resolved. - --PSYCH 03:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

there is no dissagreement over whether the party is conservative or neoliberal. it has components of both. if you are the person who has until now posted anonomous insults about me, i would appreciate if you would no longer contact me. Xtra 03:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have never insulted anyone, but where is the evidence that this party is neo-liberal? There is controversy because you seem to be the only one who agrees that the party is in fact neoliberal. You hardly constitute a consensus on all things Liberal, when few users have challenged you on this.--PSYCH 03:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

>I agree, how can anyone assume this party is Neoliberal without offering any links, internal or external? Saying it is just because you think it is, is hardly a reliable source.--Buffy05 04:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no-one, other than an anonomous user and you. who apear to be the same people. have challanged this undisputable fact. just as the earth is round, so does the liberal party have a large neoliberal element. as such, do not disturb me. Xtra 04:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

see http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12197191-1702,00.html if you like for evidence. Xtra 04:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I read that article. Only ONE person has "broken ranks," with the government? One person is your "strong" neoliberal faction? That's great evidence to use against your neoliberal claim. I'll make sure they consider it during content mediation. Thanks. - Buffy05 04:28, 10 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 don't know who the other guy is, but of course I'm the anon guy. The admins (the real unbiased admins unlike yourself) told me I ned to reg to be taken seriously with a complaint(you seem to think it's your right to spread false truths about the lib party, and your anti-gay adoption and marriage views speak volumes about the type of person you are). Seeing as how you're more interested in propaganda than the truth, this post probably won't have a long shelf life. We know you like to spin the truth to ensure yourself and your party are seen in a positive light.

I hope Mark knows where you stand on these issues. - PSYCH 06:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it odd how, according to you, you supposedly "SUPPORT freedom of and from religion" but then oppose gay marriage and see gay adoption as a last resort (after singles!)? Have you heard of a separation of church and state? How can the "biblical meaning" in any way impact Australian law? Similarly, how can anyone oppose gay marriage without running into a legal web vis-a-vis separation of church and state? Not to mention, the fact that you put gays last for adoption rights demonstrates that not only look down on homosexuality, but you embody the Australian "Liberal" spirit. This is a statement, not a PERSONAL ATTACK.

- PSYCH 07:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thank you for removing your inflamatory, insulting and innacurate assertions Xtra 01:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)