|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved.|
Smee 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Hello Cojoco, The reason why i didnt modify the Stephen Conroy article to say that it is illegal to have surrogate children in Victoria, is because I think that is not entirely accurate, at the time Conroy did go to NSW for the procedure, it was not illegal per se, however proof of infertility was required, since then the laws have been changed. more info here, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22927378-23289,00.html http://www.dh.sa.gov.au/reproductive-technology/other.asp so its probably not best to word the changes you put in as you have.
Internet censorship of Australia
 In the "summarizing" of the quote, you have taken the quote out of context and represented the quote in a way that violates Wikipedia's neutrality (giving undue weight to various aspects of the argument etc.) On a further note, I do not believe that the quote needs to be summarized (as it can be considered controversial, it is best practice to represent the quote as it originally is, rather than include an unnecessary summary of it). Regards. —Dark 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Darkfalls, I didn't summarize the quote, which would have been pointless, I summarized the article: have a look at the reference. In the "response" section, a summary of each commentators position is made, and I think that these few comments summarize her position, which is different from most. You're probably better off raising issues like this on the Talk page of the article, so that your concerns can be seen more widely, and other people can chip in if they so wish. Her exact quote is I enjoy pornography. Perhaps not quite so much as I enjoy living among citizens who take an entitlement to free speech for granted. But I do like it quite a lot. And it seems that my porn is endangered., so I think my summary is fair. cojoco (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it must have been added between when I checked at home, and when I added that note when I got to work. Sorry! cojoco (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Notability of Software
No, I don't know the background, only that the page exists and is tagged as failed. Looks like more discussion took place regarding an alternate (likewise failed) at Wikipedia talk:Software notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)