User talk:Orderinchaos

User Page

Userboxes

Barnstars

Projects

Talk Page

Archives 2006: Mar-Dec 2007: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov-Dec 2008: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug Due to the announcement of the Western Australian election, and offline business related to studies, family commitments, etc, I am restricting all Wikipedia activities for the month of August to Western Australian politics. I will only be able to participate in other debates and issues as time permits. Orderinchaos 05:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Extended content Aramac · Atherton · Barcaldine · Bauhinia · Belyando · Bendemere · Blackall · Booringa · Bowen · Broadsound · Bungil · Burnett · Calliope · Cardwell · Chinchilla · Dalrymple · Douglas · Duaringa · Eacham · Eidsvold · Emerald · Herberton · Ilfracombe · Inglewood · Isis · Isisford · Jericho · Johnstone · Kolan · Longreach · Mareeba · Mirani · Miriam Vale · Murilla · Nebo · Peak Downs · Sarina · Stanthorpe · Tambo · Tara · Taroom · Waggamba · Wambo · Warroo · Warwick · Whitsunday · Wondai · Extended content I lost my work list, so it's going here. Key priorities: priorities changed 08:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Member lists for WA elections 1897, 1901, 1914-1965, 1974-1989. Reformat 1968, 1971, 1993-2005 as appropriate. All electorates on 1908-1911 and 1911-1914 (starting by reformatting those that already exist) All biographies on 1908-1911 and 1911-1914 (starting by reformatting those that already exist) 1911 election, Beverley 1910 by-election. Basic articles on 1904, 1905, 1908, 1914, 1917 elections National Party of Western Australia Any National politicians in the two books I need to return. History of self-government in Western Australia high priority - single articles Responsible government Federalism in Australia Colin Jamieson Local government in Queensland (primarily to milk the sources I now have - finish later) John Howard (not a priority until WA politics is done, due to proximity of election) Longer term development: Term lists, 1894-1996 (Leg Council) Basic articles for elections, 1956 to 2005 Even more basic articles for elections, 1890 to 1953 Once we get here, we should have a complete set of term lists, current electorates and a list ready for FL. 57 WA electorates (as of 2005) (done Perth, Murdoch) 1968-2005 abolished electorates (done Canning) 59 WA electorates (as of 2009) (on hold - local government:) Major reforms Victoria 1915 - Local Government Acts Amendment Act 1914 (No.2557) and Local Government Act 1915 (No.2686) Queensland 1916-1919 Queensland 1949 Queensland 1993-1995 (part of Electoral and Administrative Review Commission process) Victoria 1993-1995 - Local Government Amendment (General Amendment) Act 1993, City of Greater Geelong Act 1993 Queensland 2007 - Local Government Reform Implementation Act (No.31 of 2007) Local government (QLD): Local government in Queensland Divisional Boards Act (Queensland) Sources for 1879 and 1887 Acts, plus the gazettal of the original 74. List of divisional boards in Queensland Electoral and Administrative Review Commission Thankyou from Kambalda West! Thanks for your input and suggestions. I am going to concentrate on teaching how to encode and reference properly before I get carried away on the Kambalda page (baby steps!) I was just wondering, as a teacher, is there a good way of avoiding blatant plagarism (in the context of a high school)? I just know they're all going to try to just cut and paste stuff from other sites... I don't mean to invade your privacy, but I am very curious as to who you are and how you became a Wiki administrator. I am a second year teacher myself, but to be honest there aren't many other teachers around here who do this sort of thing. Perhaps you should be running PD's??? I would come! -I have just read your userpage and I have to say I am surprised at how much we have in common! Once again, keep up your great work, you seem like a very valuable person to know! Dan C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambaldawdhs (talk • contribs) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Kambalda West DHS deletion Thankyou for for explaining the deletion of my subpages in a way which was much less rude than the other guy. I will keep my page names anonymous from now on. I probably will encourage students to create their own usernames, but as I am just beginning to teach this to them, I felt that I would have a tighter reign on things by starting work on a single user profile. From the terseness of Gnangarra's message, I am unsure about whether students' practice pages count as acceptable use. Are they? I was planning to produce the kambalda article, that is why I have signed up. Thanks for the Bridgetown link, I will check it out. Did you use local publications as references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambaldawdhs (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Nedlands Hey, great job on the rewrite. Seems like there's a bit of a gap in the history, though: would be interesting to know the story of the independent that served between Keenan and the elder Court. Any chance that you could expand that a bit? Rebecca (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC) I intend to. Just noticed some odd editing on there and seized the opportunity to rewrite. As you've probably noticed I'm going through roughly chronologically with things and when I hit 1950 (an important election due to the massive redistribution, although not in terms of outcome) that's on my list to find out about. The surname's interesting too - another Grayden was a long term member for South Perth and yet another ran as an independent for the same seat later on - want to see if they're related. Orderinchaos 11:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC) I can confirm that David and Bill were brothers. David died in 2003, the same year Bill retired from SP. Moondyne 12:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC) I'm sure The Worst did an obit. Moondyne 01:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC) interesting henritetta did not pick that up - only the black ref can be found under the name- unless there are refs with initial used instead SatuSuro 02:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Your opinion at Talk:Western Australian state election, 2008 is most welcome Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Block of anon IP Your block of User talk:203.122.240.136 "for edit warring" seems a bit heavy handed since s/he wasn't given a prior warning. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Oops OK, I see now there was a verbal warning, but no warning symbol. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Regarding John Howard talk page Dear Orderinchaos, I noticed that you mentioned about a questionable history about some editors in the AN. I was not sure whom you were referring to. If you were referring to me, I would like to have a copy of that history myself. I do not entertain vague language which might intend to implicate me and discredit my presence here. I feel that especially because I stumbled onto John Howard article recently. I just thought I would clear things up and would expect a solid answer from you. Thanks. DockuHi 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I just moved it here. Well, I am really not angry with you. You may be wondering why i got involved in this article at all. Well, I have no stable interest. That may be one reason. But I had a good faith interest. By the way, What do you study? just out of curiosity. DockuHi 00:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC) That could take a week to answer. :P Short version: I am studying politics and international studies, have studied education and economics, previously studied IT, chemistry and mathematics and I have a bachelor's degree (in IT with a minor in chem) and a postgrad certificate. My ultimate aim is to go honours with the BA in politics, and maybe become a lecturer at some point distantly hence. Orderinchaos 00:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Cool. Quite a lot. I have to admit that it was a hostile place (John Howard talk page). I hope you wouldnt mind me participating in the article in future. DockuHi 00:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Misrepresentation of my position I notice that you have misrepresented me in the Administrator noticeboard here and here. For the record, you yourself have agreed that it does not violate BLP. See it here. Did it even occur to you that I may even agree with you on some other policy concerns. What you didnt do was discuss with me about the policy concerns. Without having had the time to do that, you rather chose to misrepresent my position all over. Now, as an administrator I should not have had to remind you that consensus could change. Reading How consensus emerges during the editing process section in WP:Consensus may be a good start (if you have forgotten this). I am willing to discuss with you about the policies WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SYN and WP:FRINGE or any other policy you want to discuss related to the content. Therefore, without involving in a discussion with me and without really knowing what my real opinions and positions of these policies in relation to the disputed content are, I would strongly discourage you from badmouthing and misrepresenting my position all over wikipedia. Instead of doing all of the above (may be you are restricted in time by your wikibreak due to personal problems), accusing me of wikilawyering and gaming the system is not what is expected of an administrator. So, let me make it clear to you, if you are ready to talk to me about wikipedia policies, engage me here or in my talk page (therefore you will ahve a chance to know where I stand on wikipedia policies in relation to the disputed content), or if you dont have time (which I absolutely understand) stop badmouthing about me and start acting like an administrator. DockuHi 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC) I don't understand the problem you are raising. One of the diffs above was written before the rapprochement above, and reflected a view I held of yourself which I have since modified to account for your brief discussion with me this morning. The other I still stand by - the edit was just plain bad, full stop. That has nothing to do with you, or your position, or anything else - another user added it, two others edit warred it, you became part of the debate much later (and did not, to your credit, engage in edit warring), as did I. We are both agreed that this particular addition is not in violation of BLP. My position has always been that, and hasn't changed - in fact, my very first word on this subject was that it violates SYN, OR, UNDUE and RS, and from a "big picture" point of view makes Wikipedia look silly. Wikipedia should always be above politics and particularly above the spurious claims of activists who work hard at trying to get things into the media. It's not that hard to do if you give the media agencies a pre-packaged product, I used to work in a large organisation where an entire department with the innocuous sounding name of "Corporate Communications" was employed full time to do just that. It goes on all around us. In addition, when writing on AN today, given that you and I, I felt, had resolved our differences, I deliberately dropped any mention of you from my comments, as I saw no point in flogging a dead horse, as the old saying goes - if my dispute with someone has been resolved, there is no need to continue it. As far as I'm concerned though, the matter is over, and there is nothing further about *this* edit to discuss - it's been done to death, and a neutral, uninvolved administrator has observed that there is no consensus to add it anyway. We are open to *all* suggestions to improve the article, but continuing on about this single, one line addition made in haste almost 14 days ago without appropriate checking is simply fuelling drama and is not improving the article, which will probably stagnate for the next 2 months once again until someone else thinks of something inane to add that everybody will fight over. As I noted at AN, I was actually a very late entrant to this dispute. Orderinchaos 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your response. I will respond to you after carefully reading. Well, you have mentioned your position. I will respond to you about my position. If we disagree, that is fine, we cant convince each other. Atleast, you will know my position. Will respond by tomorrow. DockuHi 18:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC) No worries. Incidentally, if you want to see what I mean with regard to the inferior content issues with relation to this article, look at the subsection entitled "Prime Minister". Almost half of it is about his time as opposition leader before he became prime minister, then it takes a 6-7 year leap, ignoring over half of his time in office, before resuming some kind of consistency for 2003. It gives really no overview or concept to the reader about the man, his time in office or how he was positioned. Orderinchaos 18:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Deletion review for Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg A deletion review of Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg has been requested. Since you were involved in the IfD for it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 09:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC) ExtraDry Is there any way to check? Their MOs are very similar. JRG (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC) re your commetn at usertalk Sarah Concernng your most recent comments at Sarah's talk page - apparently addressed to me and hence I will respond here rather than there. You said: (1) 3RR is pretty clear. One party breached it, the other didn't. One party got blocked, the other didn't. Yes, the other's behaviour was not behaviour to be encouraged. I think we're all agreed on that. But I am really not seeing the problem here - we have a policy and it got enforced in the exact, clear terms in which it was written. The person who got blocked was well aware of the policy and had been blocked for it numerous times before in unrelated circumstances in unrelated venues. There was certainly no breach of policy in enforcing it. (2) Re OTRS, you yourself have stated your intent to write to it, I was under the impression you had done so based solely on on-wiki comments by yourself, and your edit to a project-space talk page. Again, not seeing the problem. You've been levelling some fairly major allegations and accusations at people who you've been working with for two and more years, and I'm really not sure how you expect it to "die down" by doing that. It makes no sense to me. None of your response to this is in any way calming the situation—quite the reverse. (3) This situation is making a mockery of the lot of us, though. We are all normally able to collaborate and cooperate on WP:AUS and I'm not entirely sure to this point what went wrong. I think some thoroughly silly things have been done and said by several parties (and I do not exclude myself from this), it's probably coming a time soon where we should draw a line under it and move on, especially as it seems the John Howard article may just improve out of it all. In response, (1) there is no way I am implying a breach of policy on the part of Sarah. I am rather surprised that you in this instance take the view that One party got blocked, the other didn't. Yes, the other's behaviour was not behaviour to be encouraged. When you criticised me for reporting what was a clear breach - no policy was breached in that report or by the blocking admin - how does your response reconcile? (I think you criticised me and I am not going to go and try and find the diff - if I have this wrong apologies but your comment to Skyring, Skyring's RfC , Gnangarra's endorsement, your partial endorsement, comments you have made since, ... lead me to think that you criticised me on this without searching for your exact words) . (1a) - probably belongs on Sarah's page but ... She said The protection request and the edit war and the 3RR violation were reported to RPP. No need to be bureaucratic and respond to the protection request but send Gnangarra to WP:3RR to report the 3RR, hmm? Seems kind of silly to suggest that users should have to file multiple individual reports. I disagree it is silly to report sepearately on 3RR and act from that page, firstly the format of the report provides for the provision of diffs and the structure of the report ensures, warnings have been given, allows for easy checking of history and so on. It also provides (often) for a response by the reported party due to timing issues. At that point MMN could have made his plea that he had in the meantime added a source - I think that changes it slightly from his reversion of you. Not entirely ... and I agree he was very very unwise (and unhelpful) to persist in reverting and the block was not a breach of policy. (1b) Given that Skyring has gone on and on about my edit warring for less reversions than he did in this instance ... Gnangarra has endorsed his views formally ... well you knew I was bitter and twisted. (1c) Sarah said It was reported to RPP so of course there was reason for administrators to be aware. - they wouldn't be following up on a RPP that has been dealt with - in dealing with it [1] she marked it as protected; did not report other actions she had taken in relation to the report. The report was moved to completed by a bot some hours later without further comment [2] - why would another admin revisit to follow up say on the other edit warring party being blocked too? I can't see it would even be appropriate. (1d) I note in passing that Sarah does not it seem normally action such reports (this is the only edit she has made in the last 1000 diffs to the page). By actioning a report when she doesn't normally action such reports, she interfered with other uninvolved (really uninvolved) admins reviewing the situation. (2) OTRS and you don't see the problem - Sarah said So matilda, I've recently been very critical of your administrative actions, are you trying to suggest that under your own definition of "involved" that you are "uninvolved" with me sufficiently to assess my actions? Pft... You haven't seen straight with regard to any other matter recently, including hardblocking alternate accounts being used to write an RFC about yourself, I fail to see why this would be any different. I think you have a very unique definition of "uninvolved" but I can't say any further about that without violating OTRS. My reply was I would be absolutely appalled that you could consider violating OTRS and I would suggest that even mentioning that there may be a Wikipedia:OTRS case or cases is in fact improper. I don't know what she is referring to. If she is referring to the fact that I have written to OTRS and had no reply - as you said - that is no secretand I don't know then why she is mentioning it - how it fits into the context - since it doesn't I have assumed that she means something else - what not sure. Perhaps she will explain - it makes no sense to me right now. My OTRS request both by email subject header and from my email address (not least as it is complete with dot au suffix) would have been obvious to any Australian OTRS volunteer. (2a) She thinks I have a unique definition of uninvolved but perhaps she needs to explain point 1d above. I seriously think this exercise would benfit from uninvolved admins - this does not mean I am trying to change what uninvolved means often and ordinarily but some srious distance and review would help. No off-wiki chat ... That being said when on finally does get an uninvolved admin - they confuse me and MickMacNamee (see his talk page) :-( !!! (2b) Meta:Rule of diminishing replies may be the answer to waht Sarah was referring to - I don't know. I don't think it is the answer for me in my view of me right now as must be apparent. (3) With ref to I'm not entirely sure to this point what went wrong. I think some thoroughly silly things have been done and said by several parties (and I do not exclude myself from this), it's probably coming a time soon where we should draw a line under it and move on Motwithstanding 2b - drawing a line is not working for me - I am upset and angry and stressed. I am sick of the unacknowledged by the community personal attacks - not just at me but at others - and not just by Skyring but by others including you. I am sick of the apparent collusion (apparent by occasional reference to off-wiki conversations plus actual actions) whereby some are acting together and against others which includes not just me. You yourself have inferred that editors are working together, are sockpuppets, are ... it goes on and on. Drawing the line and never saying sorry is ... in my view not appropriate - saying sorry might help but do you know what you are sorry for? I think I have said sory for everything (that I mean to) but it doesn't seem to satisfy anyone - they go on and on and on. So therefore they thinkg I have done wrong in some way - as per the RfC - which in my view was just a personal attack and not in line with RfC guidelines ... Signing off now - yes I feel as though I am ranting - but you asked and hence my reply. --Matilda talk 07:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Replied to your response via email --Matilda talk 03:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Electorate names In general I think renamed electorates ought to have a new page. See for instance, Darwin/Braddon, Wilmot/Lyons, Balaclava/Goldstein. --Bush shep (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC) After thinking about it, I still hold to my original opinion. Once a seat name is changed from say, Mitchell to Leschenault, it ceases to be the Electoral district of Mitchell. As annoying or confusing as that may be. Bush shep (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Encylopedia for the people Hello OiC. I come to ponder the purpose of Wikipedia. An encyclopaedia edited by the people, for the people? A place where the weight of community opinion rules over the individual. Therefore, the people get the encyclopaedia that they want (or deserve!), with content shaped by the will of the masses, for better or for worse. The failings of this method have been well documented, and have enabled traditional encyclopaedias to survive, as well as newcomers like Google's Knol, which is apparently only written by people knowledgeable in their field. A few days ago you posted a comment stating that one day you hope to be a University lecturer in politics. Your political knowledge must be extensive, which would possibly qualify you to also submit articles for Knol (as well as Wikipedia). My point is that Wikipedia remains the publication of the people, with all the advantages and disadvantages that it entails, while Knol and others are searching for a higher ground. If the masses and rabble participating in Wikipedia want articles about Lindsay Lohan's latest girlfriend and Kevin Rudd's ear wax, then that's the encyclopaedia they get, even if you or I regard those events as trivia. Which brings me to the subject of recent reverting of the John Howard article by a particular editor, his continuing practice of deleting referenced information, and your support of those events, and other events surrounding the same editor. It is my opinion that this practice of reverting referenced content immediately after it was added, and "atmospheres" on talk pages, are inhibiting community participation in Wikipedia. We can debate whether or not it makes Wikipedia a better encylopaedia or not, but that's basically irrelevant if it inhibits community participation in the project. We have to accept the concept that the community gets the encyclopaedia they deserve, and that community participation is the #1 most important factor. We don't always get a result that we think ourselves to be for the better. Our goals for a higher calibre product may be thwarted due to participation by the wider community, but that's how it goes. It saddens me that the particular editor who is well known for reverting referenced content gets admin support for continuing these actions. It's sad mostly because it's not in that editor's best interests. It's like taking the editor by the hand, saying "come with me", and leading him to a place where there is a probability that he will end up in trouble (with the Wikipedia community and policies). That's because the practice of continually reverting like that can be described as tendentious editing. Support for tendentious editing is not in anyone's interests, and particularly not in the interests of the involved editor, as it will inevitably end up with bans or penalties down the line (as it has in the past). The alternative is community dispute resolution processes, instead of reverting. The community dispute resolution process may or may not produce a better encyclopaedia, but that's the only alternative we have. To do otherwise would be contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. I hope you take this as a friendly note, and I compliment you on your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, --Lester 04:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your reply. The remote articles that are infrequently visited probably also reflect the community interest in those topics. If not many people are interested in editing them, it may also mean that there is a small audience of people to read them. Once again, Wikipedia becomes the encyclopaedia that the masses want. I had to pause for a moment to wonder who the foreign editors are that you mention. Not really sure, not that it matters I guess. I assume you are making the point that the community is not represented if someone launches a concerted campaign. But some people think I'm the one with the 'organised campaign'! I have not noticed a campaign at the John Howard article, as most of the recent content additions that have met with controversy were originally added by regular editors. Most of the crazy long and never ending discussions about those topics have mostly involved a small group of 4 or so people (2 on each side). Even if there is a campaign, I think rapid reversion of referenced content is wrong. There are other ways. Wikipedia dispute resolution comes to mind. 2 campaigning editors would be overwhelmed by the entire group, and besides, they'd have to argue their points on merit. Regarding the bunker material, as I said to Skyring, it would not be that difficult to rewrite it with some context. Even the reference in the article (that was deleted) had some thoughts from Howard about September 11, which could have been combined with the bunker stuff. An easy reword was all that was needed, not the rapid deletion that happened. Rapid deletion is what causes tensions to rise, as the contributing editor is going to feel their efforts are not given due consideration. That's what causes the edit wars, followed by the heated arguments on the discussion page. That way just doesn't work. The situation is completely dysfunctional. I want to convince people that things need to be done a different way. Kind regards, --Lester 06:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC) I am the only foreign (foreign to Australia, wikipedia is really an international entity) editor (atleast that is what i think, I dont know about others). I infact think foreign editors bring a different perspective to the article thus should be encouraged. may be I should also make it clear that I am not part of any concerted campaign. I (like a few others as can be seen in the article talk page) still believe that calls for war crime trials and even allegations have a place in the article, I however am not going to insist on arguing that because 1) I am kind of convinced that getting consensus is not easy 2) I dont have time. On a different note, I dont think formal University education has anything to do with an editor's personal talent and ability to contribute to wikipedia. I have received a PhD degree and have several peer-reviewed publications in well reputed international journals, but sometimes when i go back and read my old comments in wikipedia, i cant help but wonder how lousy I was or can be.DockuHi 13:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) (ec) I had two individuals in mind when I wrote that, and you weren't one of them. Good faith foreign editors are something that we could do with more of - sometimes people immersed in the same culture as the subject either ignore things which are salient to international or distant observers, or focus strongly on things which have no encyclopaedic value but which attracted some local attention here. As I said elsewhere, I look forward to working with you. As for university education, I agree. Some of the most interesting people I have met in my time with some amazing perspectives on life and a lot of knowledge to boot have no university education. Orderinchaos 15:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC) I guess my comments are not in line with the theme of general comments made by Lester. I acknowledge that the current way of doing things is dysfunctional and support his idea of doing things differently. DockuHi 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC) The trouble with the current mode-of-behaviour at the John Howard article, is that it locks a lot of people out. Reading some of the recent words from the reverting editor, it looks like he believes it's best if I'm (and others) are locked out. He appears to believe that such reverting is within Wikipedia rules. OiC, some of your recent comments appear to me to reinforce the belief that it's within Wiki rules. the way I read it, there are no rules to back up such behaviour. The BLP excuse which was given barely provides a fig leaf to hide behind. So quite a number of people are currently locked out of the John Howard article, not because of a ban or an official hearing into the matter, but purely because a small number (in fact, mainly one) editor is hostile towards them and reverts them. A revert is not a compromise, it's all or nothing. It therefore destroys consensus. This is why tensions build up and explode. Is my take on this incorrect? What then is the answer? Should all those "locked out" editors turn around and walk away? If we ignore the current dysfunction on JH related pages, it's going to get worse.--Lester 23:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I don't have time to comment extensively at the moment, but I believe Lester's comments have much value and veracity. I have been completely discouraged from participating in certain articles because of constant reverting and the reluctance of the community to enforce the guidelines and policies regarding reverting. I note that the David Hicks article has stagnated over the last few months and it is of a very poor standard, several of the basic facts are not stated explicitly and must be inferred by the reader from convoluted prose; the narrative is buried by a very poor article structure. I agree that the subject is a difficult one, but collaborative editing of the article is effectively prohibited by the behaviour of some users. I haven't attempted to contribute for several months because I see as completely pointless to participate in endless circular discussions that effectively mean that article content is developed by a process of attrition rather than consensus. Indeed Skyring actually boasts about his apparent succesful attrition of other editors. While a I may yet return to attempting to edit some of these articles, basically, as Lester says, I feel that the consensus process is almost completely dysfunctional in certain situations. Wm (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Erm Methinks there's something odd up at Electoral district of Cottesloe, unless it somehow made electoral history in 2005 by being the only electorate to have a different Labor candidate in the 2PP count than the one who actually ran in the election.... :P Rebecca (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. Can we have a member list for Victoria Park, since the article text suggests you've already got the info there? Rebecca (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)