User talk:The Prince Manifest/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Welcome to the Wikipedia
2 The Whole Bible
3 hi
4 Libs and Nats
5 Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis
- 5.1 Need for support
6 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade
7 Meg Lees
8 "(Israel) in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then.."
9 Proposal for (some) peace in the world of genocide (I hope)
10 Hitler and Armenian quote
11 2007 election
12 See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":
13 Opinion for IZAK
14 "Australian Conservative Party"
15 Jewish vote
16 2004 election
17 Networking 101
18 john anderson
19 Didn't mean to step on your toes
20 ALP Leadership
21 Jews of Afghanistan
22 Images and media for deletion
23 IDF Chiefs of Staff articles
24 Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel
25 Bennelong and Beazley
26 Source of Gough rally photo
27 Meet Up
28 photos

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 16:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Whole Bible

Hi, Evolver of Borg. :) I was curious about the statement The Whole Bible (Old Testament) Must Be Considered To Have Integrity In Whole If One Is To Believe They Happend. My understanding of the Bible is that it is a collection of works written by many different authors over vast periods of time. Given this fact, I am somewhat at a loss to understand the notion of integrity in whole. Just wondering, because I find that your addition to Genocide isn't entirely clear, (self-explainatory). func(talk) 04:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi. The article genocide is not attempting to compile a legal argument. It lists genocides mentioned in the Bible, and then it placed a disclaimer as to their accuracy solely in the interest of maintaining Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view. I just feel that your argument concerning Biblical accuracy isn't in the right place in an article on the concept of genocide. Also, I'm not aware that I expressed any particular views on the Bible, I stated only that (1) it was written by more than one author, and (2) its parts were not all written at the same time. This is why I don't understand the logic of your argument concerning integrity in whole. If one author writes The History of Southern France in 1950, and then another author writes The History of Northern France in 1970, and if those works are then compiled into a single book called The History of France, I think that, (from an academic standpoint), one can question part of the book without calling into question the other part. If you have further thoughts specifically pertaining to the genocide article, we should probably discuss them on its talk page. Cheers. :) func(talk) 19:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] hi

i was just reading your user page and i noticed that you, as i am a jew from melbourne. i also noticed that we share similar political attributes. however, i believe it is appropriate to have religious political parties, so long as their aim is not to enforce religion Xtra

isn't the australian greens in that category? they block or attempt to block over 80% of proposed laws. Xtra

i wouldn't make any too drastic changes to it, as there are people who make sure that site stays the same Xtra

[edit] Libs and Nats

Dear Evolver, the Libs and the Nats always run separate Senate tickets in Queensland. The No 1 national candidate is Barnaby Joyce. Adam 01:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 10:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Need for support

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 02:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Vote "NO". Opposed to SamSpade's unfriendly views in the Jew article. IZAK 08:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Meg Lees

You made it clear during earlier debates that you are a supporter of Meg Lees. Adam 02:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I formed the view that you supported Lees based on your wildly over-optimistic edits about her chances of retaining her seat, which were always close to nil. If you say you are not a Lees supporter, I accept that. The point of course is not about who we support but how we edit. My political loyalties are no secret but I have rarely been accused of pro-Labor bias in my edits at Wikipedia (and only by extreme leftists).

On Melbourne Ports, Southwick and Liberal head office got what they deserved for their digracefully dirty campaign against Danby (the bogus green HTV, the anonymous leaflet to Orthodox homes apparently using a stolen Yeshiva mailing list, etc). But these sentiments will not of course be reflected in my editing here. Adam 03:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"I wouldn't really call it dirty when there was next to no effect on the electorate." I'm sure you will see that there is no logical sequence in that sentence. The dirtiness of a campaign is not measured by its effect but by its dirtiness. In any case, the campaign did have an effect, since all the booths east of Orrong Rd swung fairly solidly to Southwick. There are plenty of Liberal Jews, but hitherto most of them have voted for Danby out of Jewish solidarity. Given a choice of two Jews, many of them chose the Liberal. The reason the overall result is quite good for Danby is that there was an offsetting swing to him in St Kilda, Albert Park and South Yarra, where Southwick and his "community values" went down like a stale bagel. Adam 04:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "(Israel) in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then.."

Please see History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#The war for Palestine where User:HistoryBuffer insists on inserting: that Israel "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."...When no-one but he says this, and refuses to accept anything else. He also isnsists on editing-away lots of NPOV's that don't suit him, take a look at [1] please. IZAK 08:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for (some) peace in the world of genocide (I hope)

Hi there. Obviously you & I have some fundamental and serious disagreements, but I came up with a couple of ideas to try to settle things better in the various genocide and ethnic articles where we cross paths.

You mentioned in your edit of genocide that you haven't found one comprehensive article covering the totality of Native Americans and European colonization of North America. I do not find one either, and I think you have a valid point. I think you & I are in agreement as far as what happened to the Native Americans and how severe and terrible it was. My concerns about your edits on genocide and ethnocide have been mostly pedantic. I feel like in your enthusiasm to draw attention to these crimes, you've scatter-shot information in places where it doesn't meet the precise (I did say "pedantic") definition of the article you're posting in.

Well, I thought about this, and the problem we both have is, what happened to the Native Americans pretty much encompasses everything, and I think if we slice-and-dice it into just the ethnocidal stuff, just the ethnic cleansing stuff, and just the genocide stuff, it loses its impact. Divide and conquer, if you will. In addition to that, there are things that don't qualify as any of the above (e.g., reporters from the West sending back reports of "Indian massacres" that never occurred, to promote public outrage among whites, monuments still standing in the U.S. commemorating the victims of non-existent attacks), which don't seem to be on-topic anywhere. This makes me think that it would be valuable to have one single article examining all of the issues of colonization and crimes against Native Americans. It's also been pointed out by others on wikipedia that there are counter-accusations of atrocities committed by Native Americans against colonial civilians, and one comprehensive article would give a place for those issues to be aired for NPOVness.

Anyway, if we were to figure out what to call such an article, we could create one and discuss what parts of the Native American experience were outright genocide, what parts were ethnic cleansing, what parts were and are ethnocide, and what other things occurred, all in one place. Would you support the creation of an article like this, and could we agree that we would reference it in genocide, ethnic cleansing, ethnocide, genocides in history and other relevant articles, instead of overburdening those articles with excessive detail about this very large subject?

Thinking about all this also made me think that I would support the creation of a separate article to handle the claims and counter-claims regarding Israel and Palestine, so that we could move the fight off of genocides in history and into a home of its own. Political differences aside, I think the fundamental difference you & I have on genocides in history is that you want to publish all the evidence you can find to support your side; although I could go dig up an equal or greater quantity of evidence to condemn acts by the Israelis, I am unwilling to do so in that article because the article is supposed to be a concise summary. (And thus the result is POV.) I'm sure you would agree that there are hundreds or even thousands of historical genocides deserving of readers' attention, and I would hate to see the article bogged down with an evidence war over just one. My only reservation is that it appears there are a great number of extremely granular articles regarding Israel and Palestine already, but if none of them specifically focus on analyzing the conflict as it relates to international genocide law, then perhaps yet another new article would be warranted. Would you support the creation of such an article, and agree to move the details off of genocides in history (with a prominent reference, of course) and onto a new page? —Bsktcase 02:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of support on my Talk page. Now, what should the pages be called?

I think the Israel/Palestine article should be limited in scope to discussion of alleged genocide, ethnic cleansing and/or ethnocide in the region only, for the reason that (as I mentioned above) there are a tremendous number of articles covering Israel/Palestine generally and in a wide variety of specifics. If this article is overly-broad it'll simply duplicate what's already here and will become a merge candidate. Agree? I'm not sure how to express that accurately in less than 25 words, though.

For the Native American article, I think it would be appropriate to have a broader scope, because I haven't found any place where these issues are already covered. So I would suggest it encompass not only genocide, ethnic cleansing, ethnocide/culturecide, but also discuss unintended harms (e.g., introduction of European diseases), beneficial or neutral changes brought by colonization (e.g., introduction of horses, livestock, new agricultural products), and non-violent acts of bias or discrimination (e.g., false reports of massacres) and how those all fit in to the big picture. That lends itself even less well to a concise name, because "genocide" just doesn't cover it.

Shall we solicit input for these on, say, Village pump? (Perhaps then if there are existing well-suited articles, someone will direct us to those too/instead.) —Bsktcase 20:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, my ideas so far are: Genocide and ethnic conflict in Israel and Palestine and Effects of European colonization in North America. What do you think? —Bsktcase 20:45, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding "persecution and pain"... although we could choose to focus the new page in that direction, I think we really must allow room for discussion of wars declared and/or atrocities committed by Native Americans against European civilians. Also, it is a better and more balanced article if we include claims of any beneficial effects of colonization. Don't get me wrong: I expect the list of negative effects to be extremely lengthy, detailed and damning, while I expect the list of claims of positive effects and "provocations" to be tenuous and short.

Elsewhere on wikipedia folks have reminded me that when all the facts are presented, they speak for themselves, and no advocacy of a particular conclusion is needed because the conclusion is obvious. (Alternately, if the facts do not make one particular conclusion obvious, then a full airing of all sides is even more important, because anything less is intentionally skewing to promote a POV.) So I think a neutral and broad title ("effects" rather than "persecution and pain") gives us a better base for potentially a better article.

I'll move the new Israel Palestine article to the new title and note that we agreed on the move. Making progress! —Bsktcase 17:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, a reasonable point about being potentially overbroad, but we still need to be broad enough to accommodate a wide range of types of effects and, more importantly, diverse points of view. Would Native American experiences of colonization in North America be closer to what you are hoping for? —Bsktcase 04:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is what you mean, but "America" shouldn't be used as a synonym for "United States". So either "the Americas" if we mean both continents (which I wasn't planning on), "North America" (which I prefer) or "U.S." (the wikipedia standard abbreviation) would be accurate depending on what you are looking for. However, I think "U.S." is unnecessarily restrictive and introduces both timeline and geographic confusion.

Here are my goals/preferences:

Prefer colonization (a verb, an ongoing process) to colony (a rather specific political entity) or colonial (implies a limited historical period).
Prefer North America to U.S.
- Inclusive of all European perpetrators
- Inclusive of pre- and post-Revolutionary time periods
- Inclusive of Alaska, Canada, Mexico
- Avoids confusion over shifting political boundaries
- Avoids confusion over the [North] American West, most of which did not join the U.S. until long after most of the damage to Native Americans was already done
- Excludes South America, which is fine with me

I don't think there's any danger that we're going to fail to indict the U.S. government and military for the things they did; that's where, again, the evidence we present will make the case without us needing to beat readers over the head with it. :)

Prefer an inclusive word instead of "tensions". "Tensions" would exclude any (alleged) beneficial effects of colonization and would also exclude neutral and unintended effects. I know I'm being a broken record on this, but this subject matter can easily become a POV anti-Europe/anti-U.S. screed and we must not allow that to happen. Because the evidence itself will be so overwhelmingly damning, it's especially important that we make a place for anything that others might want to add for balance.

Native American experiences of colonization in North America is the best I can come up with and is still my choice. —Bsktcase 15:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler and Armenian quote

Hi there!

Don't know if you are still editing Armenian genocide, but i was tiredfor correcting again and again the same info, so i guesses it would be better to go directly to one of editors, such as you. Please read the Hitler's Armenian quote. Note the words:

"with orders to them to send to death, mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of _Polish_ race and language"

He did not say nothing about Holocaust, but specifically about destruction of Polish nation.

The quote of course is disputed, but it is without ANY DOUBT, that despite the efforts of some people who are trying to twist Hitler's words (but please, dont think i am some kind of his fan or anything) in this case eh was not saying about the Holocaust, but about Poles specifically. And he of course did exactly what he said, with 60.000 victims of executions by Wehrmacht, Einsatzgruppen etc in first few months of occupation. Szopen 10:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 election

I'm completely bemused as to where you're drawing your conclusions from here. I agree that the Green vote is unlikely to keep going up and up - but neither is it going to fall drastically. I haven't even heard the nutjob far-right-wing columnists suggesting that Brown, or even Nettle, is in the slightest danger of losing their seats. Particularly considering the advantages of incumbency, and their associated profile.

A much more likely scenario is that, with Labor not preferencing Family First, that the Greens will pick up new Senators in Victoria (especially considering that Lyn Allison will be running, as a third-party senator), and potentially some other states - if she does not retire, and does not retain her seat, Stott Despoja will most likely be replaced by a Green, as well.

And finally, most of the former Democrat voters went to the Liberals, with the Greens winning voters from Labor. Look at the respective swings. The Democrats draw their voters from the centre - the Greens draw them from the left, as well as disgruntled voters from the rest of the spectrum. Furthermore, they're swinging because of issues related to that party, which very obviously do not apply to the Greens. So attempting to draw a parallel between the two is, quite simply, bizarre. Ambi 09:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll take your word on the situation with Nettle - I'm not as familiar with the NSW situation, and I had noted that the NSW Greens candidate was the furthest from achieving victory this time. She'll still have the advantage of incumbency, however.

As for Allison, however - I didn't say that she'd lose out because her votes would go to the Greens. David Risstrom effectively won the seat this time, but Labor preferences put Fielding over the line, despite Risstrom having thrashed him on the primary vote. Without some unforseen crash in the Green vote, this would seem to point to a good chance of gaining a senator in Victoria in 2007, and this could be helped by the fact that a minor party will be up for re-election. Several commentators have already suggested the same thing.

And as for Stott Despoja - it's a red herring to point to Lees. They come from completely different ends of the political scale, despite being in the same party, and it was fairly obvious that a lot of Lees' vote was going to go to the Liberals. But the South Australian Senate is a free-for-all, and that seat could well go to anyone. Still - if Stott Despoja doesn't resign, and if she does lose her seat, the Greens would have to be in with a fairly good chance, based on their 2004 result, and Stott Despoja's political alignment/supporter base. Ambi 13:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Middle_East_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Islamic_terrorist_organizations and this one too: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_terrorist_organizations

IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion for IZAK

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 07:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Australian Conservative Party"

Can you cite a source for the existence of a party of this name? Just because colonial politicians called themselves conservatives doesn't mean there was an Australian Conservative Party. There was in any case no such political entity as "Australia" in the 19th century. Research should preceed editing. Adam 12:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish vote

I'm not going to revert your edits, because I try to avoid edit wars around the Danby article since I work for him, but it is a historical fact that the bulk of the Melbourne Jewish community have always voted Labor. I agree that this support is weakening as the community grows more prosperous, and more alienated from the left over Israel-Palestine issues, and as the older Jewish socialist tradition imported from Europe fades away, but it is still the general view that the majority of Jews vote Labor. Danby would not be MP for Melbourne Ports if this were not the case, although it is true that some Jews vote for Danby but no other Labor candidates. Adam 02:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is true that the great majority of postwar Jewish emigration from Europe, socialist and otherwise, went to Israel, but quite a lot came to Australia, and many of them brought Bundist or Communist sympathies with them. There were also a lot of pre-war leftwing Jewish immigrants, who were anti-Zionist and thus didn't want to go to Palestine, or who like Yitzhak Gust went there but didn't like it. I don't know if you have read Amirah Inglis's Memoirs of an Un-Australian Childhood - she gives a very good picture of the Jewish leftwing milieu in Elwood in the 1940s. The Communist Party was full of Jews like the Aarons family and Bernie Taft for many years. The anti-Vietnam War left was also heavily Jewish: Sam Goldbloom, Albert Langer, Dave Nadel etc etc. This tradition permeated much of Melbourne Jewish life for many years, but is now dying out. It's worth noting that nearly all the Jews in federal parliament since the war have been Labor: Max Falstein, Syd Einfeld, Barry Cohen, Sam Cohen, Moss Cass, Joe Berinson and Danby, against one Liberal, Peter Baume.

On your second point, it is of course impossible to know exactly how the Jewish community voted. There were swings of 4-6% in the Caulfield booths, and much lower swings in East St Kilda, suggesting that many wealthier Jews who had voted for Danby solely because he was Jewish voted for Southwick this time, while the generally older and poorer (and more Orthodox) Jews in East St Kilda were less inclined to defect. Danby's view and the views of other people in the Jewish community whose opinions I respect is that the majority of Jews still voted Labor, though the majority was probably a lot small than in earlier years. It may not be literally true that Danby would be defeated if all the Jews in Melbourne Ports voted Liberal, but it would be a close-run thing. Adam 06:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Danby's relations with the Lubavitchers are excellent - he wrote an obituary for Chaim Gutnick in the Australian which was greatly appreciated, and he is good friends with Rabbi Groner. They may be conservative but they know who their friends are. You have to remember that Danby has been building networks in the Jewish community all his life.
This may come as a shock to you, but before the war and the Holocaust the majority of Jews were not Zionists. The Orthodox mostly opposed Zionism on the grounds that it was blasphemous, and many (though not all) socialists opposed it on the grounds that it was a form of bourgeois nationalism and a diversion from the struggle for socialism. The Bund, for example, which was the largest Jewish political organisation in Poland, was violently opposed to Zionism, as were political leaders like Leon Blum. I'm sure you know about Isaac Isaacs's views. When Jabotinksy went to Poland in (I think) 1938 and urged the Jews to leave, the Bund accused him of fostering anti-Semitism. Many Jews who emigrated from Europe in the 20s and 30s were socialists of various kinds and went to the US or Australia or wherever, rather than to Palestine. Possibly they don't teach you such seditious things at Bialik.
You should be able to find Inglis's book in the Baillieu or the State Library. Adam 11:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, before I withdrew from editing non-Australian articles, I was working on a new Holocaust article to replace the current sorry and offensive mess. You can see the draft here. Your opinion would be welcome. I am not prepared to post it as a Wikipedia article under the current state of affairs, because it would be immediately attacked by cranks of all kinds. Adam 02:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 election

The table shows changes since the 2001 election. Therefore the Greens should not be shown as losing a seat, since they didn't win any seats in 2001. The fact that they won Cunningham at a by-election then failed to retain it doesn't show on this table. It is noted in the text. Adam 14:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Networking 101

How Danby keeps in good with the Orthodox: Hansard page 94 Adam 04:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] john anderson

wouldnt those quotes be more apropriate on wikiquote. i appreciate them, but i dont know of any other articles which have a similar selection of quotes. Xtra 10:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't mean to step on your toes

FYI, I've just noticed your note at Talk:Genocide and ethnic conflict in Israel and Palestine, after my edit. Feel free to reuse/discuss, etc. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ALP Leadership

Evolver, do you have any material to back up the assertion that Swan is a potential candidate? I know I have seen Swan mentioned in articles (unfortunately, none of which I have kept), but none so far for Smith. I appreciate that you are discussing speculation which may or may not be substantiated, but I have to say, I haven't seen any mention of Smith. Moreover, as an ALP member, I am, I suggest in a reasonable position to evaluate the mush that some journalists attempt to pass off as informed comment :). Best regards, Lacrimosus 08:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jews of Afghanistan

Are you joking or were you serious? Sorry, you lost meRefdoc 08:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is indeed intriguieing.

Jews though had a long history in Afghanistan AFAIK and it might be useful to write an article about this - if you know more about it. Kind of memorial. Refdoc 10:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images and media for deletion

I totally disagree with your claim that the shrak image is anti-Semitic, but even if it were, what does that have to do with it? Have you seen the illustrations on the anti-Semitism article? Images do not need to be NPOV when their purpose is to illustrate a POV, which is what this is doing. - Mustafaa 11:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IDF Chiefs of Staff articles

Hello Evolver: As you can see at: History of the Israel Defense Forces#List of Chiefs of the General Staff, there are no articles about six (out of 18) of the Israel Defense Forces' Chiefs of Staff: (1) Dan Shomron (1987-1991); (2) Moshe Levi (1983-1987); (3) Mordechai Gur (1974-1978); (4) David Elazar (1972-1974); (5) Tzvi Tzur (1961-1963); (6) Chaim Laskov (1958-1961). Are you able to provide some history and information about them? Thank you. IZAK 11:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

This is now done. IZAK 07:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel

Shalom Evolver: Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks IZAK 07:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/India, Wikipedia:Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi EoB, consider youself invited to WP:WNBI. Spread the word. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bennelong and Beazley

Dearest Borg, I know you are a loyal Young Liberal, but there are smart ways and dumb ways to get your political opinions across in Wikipedia articles. Your edits about Bennelong and Beazley fall in the Robert Doyle league of dumbness - that is, very dumb indeed. You're a bright boy, you can do better than this. Cheers, Adam 09:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source of Gough rally photo

I notice the photo you recently added Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. Who owns the copyright to that photo and on what grounds are you using it? --Robert Merkel 09:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

i have noticed this as well. You may want to specify the license for this or it will get deleted fairly quickly. Nomadtales 06:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meet Up

Borg, you should try to come to this. Cheers, Adam 11:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] photos

My photos may be of dubious merit, but they are indisputably public domain. I think eventually the Parliament's photos will be found not to be PD, despite our elaborate disclaimers. Adam 04:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User_talk%7EThe_Prince_Manifest_Archive_1_a331.html"