User talk:Adpete/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Adpete. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello Rocksong, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 01:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rocksong. I've noticed you working on various political and South Australia-related articles and I'd just like to thank you for doing so. Also, in case you hadn't already discovered them, I wanted to let you know about the Australian resources on Wikipedia. In particular, the Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, the Australia Portal, the WikiProject Australian politics, and the WikiProject Adelaide may be of interest to you. Happy editing, --cj | talk 04:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked around and had to download all the NWT Acts (pdf files) for each of the Inuvaluit communities to get the NWT figures. They are a bit confusing as to region/community quotas. I did check Manitoba, Quebec, Yukon and Labrador for polar bear hunts but couldn't find any. As far as I know they would be the only other places that might have some bears and hunt them but I don't think they do. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to note the high FF vote. Kavel contains a lot of smaller country towns with a high christian population... it will be interesting to see how the FF vote changes if Playford doesn't contest the seat in the 2010 election. Timeshift 04:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it was important to note, because I think all commentators would agree that the FF vote in Kavel was at least in part a Playford vote. If you follow the link to the Thomas Playford V article you will see his vote was actually higher in 2002 when he stood as an independent, so he's obviously got significant local appeal. Rocksong 04:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as doubting it... just saying witth the two major appeal factors - there is obvious appeal as he is a Playford, it's just that with all the religious people in the area, it will be interesting to see how the vote changes. It would be even better if he ran in 2010 as an independent and FF fielded a different candidate... and how the vote would split between them. Just interesting is all :) Timeshift 04:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion, do you think all these reverts are fair? I've gone down to just the word "moderate" but that's still not liked!! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayne_Matthew&action=history Timeshift 05:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See my reply at Talk:Wayne Matthew Rocksong 05:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Very very nicely said and done by you :-) I cannot believe I did not make the waymat/Wayne Matthew connection. And to think an MP was in an edit war with me... hahaha. PS: Take a look at what else he's up to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electricity_Trust_of_South_Australia&diff=60816463&oldid=59585419 Timeshift 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question if you don't mind me asking it. I notice on your user page that you note that you only recently joined the Family First party. I am in no way questioning your right to vote for them and I fully respect minority parties, but i'm just wondering what policies of theirs attract you to vote for them? Timeshift 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Christian (Baptist denomination), and my faith leads me to a political position which I would call pro-life and pro-justice. So that draws me to the "right" on so-called "social" issues such as abortion and embryo research, to the "left" on big "justice" issues such as war and immigration, and with no axe to grind (so sort of in the centre) on things like taxation and industrial relations. I think it's a position shared by many people, and neglected by the other parties, but I think Family First fills the gap fairly well. Rocksong 01:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The impression I get, reading between the lines of Family First propoganda, is very different. I will begin to respect the Family First Party when I see them campaigning not only for the needs of families, but for the needs of people who are seperated from their families - e.g. the homeless, refugees, and so on. I have yet to see the Family First party campaigning on the basis of genuine Christian values, and until I do, I strongly object to the party being described as Christian. Zerrakhi 05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree those things are very important to campaign for. Family First have made some noises in that direction, but not enough, I agree. Family First are not the perfect political party, but still preferable (in my mind) to anyone else out there. Rocksong 13:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

FAMILY FIRST ARE A FACIST PARTY WHY WOULD YOU VOTE FOR THEM! THEIR SENATOR ONCE SAID 'BROTHELS AND MOSQUES ARE HOUSES OF SATAN'. THIS IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THE THEY ARE IN NO WAY TOLERANT. THEY, IF VOTED IN, WILL TURN AUSTRALIA INTO A NAZI GERMANY. DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111

riiiiight Rocksong 13:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Truely though, it would be a rather bad decision to give them your vote, there are after all a dagerous religious faction. They also hold extremist right wing views and are as bad if not worse than the One Nation party.Not that it matters, Kevin Rudd had 71% popularity- he gonna win the election. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.226.171.153 (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

They're not like One Nation at all. Family First supports aboriginal reconciliation and opposed Howard's hardening of asylum seeker laws. No way would One Nation do that. And if you think the minor parties don't matter just because Rudd's (supposedly) going to win, I suggest you learn how the Parliament of Australia works. Rocksong 04:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tool. 144.134.37.51 08:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish to explain the edit, and your revert at [1]. I am overhauling the article, hoping to turn into something good. The first thing I wanted to do is expand the lead section, which is required for featured articles and good articles. I will work on the other sections later, but I am going to revert back. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, nice to see you takin an interest in maintaining the standard of Fawlty Towers artcles. You may be interested in joining the ever-developing Fawlty Towers WikiProject. See you around! Foxearth 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if you're already aware of this, but the Inaugural Adelaide Meetup will take place on Thursday 24th of August at Brougham Place Uniting Church, thanks to Alex Sims. Please indicate if you will attend or not.

This message left by May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) on behalf of [ælfəks], 10:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Rocksong. I saw you arguing about "conservative labelling" Rick Warren. I wrote to the talk page about it, but you did not answered. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia, and don't know exactly how to proceed. Should I proceed without your answer? Should we discuss in our talk pages? Or will you answer there? --FernandoAires 14:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

But surely it had something to do with his decision to hold the referrendum. It showed that people wanted a reduction in members terms from 8 to 4. This is the option being given at the ref, along with total abolishion (which won't happen, no way enough people will vote for it), as well as leaving it as is. The government is just being feasible by reducing half of the house as well, because if they ALL came up for re-election every 4 years, there would be 22 spots to give each election... looking at the PDF report, I would be very suprised if the referrendum result was anything but reduced terms/numbers. Timeshift 03:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That is the only link available - I dont think it should be removed for readers not to see simply because it is in google cache. If theres absolutely no way that can be done, is there somewhere the text can be uploaded to? It just seems silly to deprive people of information because its in google cache only. Timeshift 03:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a real pity that it will get removed from google cache... history (and I mean real behind-the-scenes history) like that is hard to find... is there any other way to keep the information there? Would it be illegal to upload it to wikipedia? What about uploading the info as a txt to a host site somewhere (I don't host)... Timeshift 03:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a fair amount of factual non-opinion not found in other articles, but either way, if theres no way to keep it, there's no way to keep it :\ Timeshift 03:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that a concensus won't be reached and those that keep adding the articles and those that keep reverting will continue to do so (as I said i'm staying out of that edit and revert war). Let me know how your page comes along because I think that's the only mid-ground. Timeshift 10:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate your alterations and suggestions with South Australian legislative election, 2006 and Talk:South Australian legislative election, 2006 in trying to get the article to FA status. Your valued opinions and experience are always appreciated. Timeshift 18:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I kept the closedown information at GSTQ, since it is common for places around the world to broadcast their anthem to start or close programming (Australia does the same too, I seen the videos on YouTube). I also kept the information about the anthem having the same tune as My Country Tis of Thee (that is important to note, especially myself being a US national and this is always cited in the history books). I also kept the Queen performance, since because of their first performance, they were asked by the Queen herself to perform the anthem during her Golden Jubilee celebration. Honestly, if you want my opinion, I really do not like trivia that doesn't bring importance to the article. I do not like trivia period. But, if it is determined that the information should stay, I will also not edit war. There are plenty of articles I can touch. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As for O Canada, the trivia was removed before by other users and one person went nuts (not as in, "hey, why was this removed" but more of "OMFGWTF! j00 sux n00b") But from what I can tell, the trivia will be included since the editors favor it. While I do like to glance over all of the anthem articles, I am no control over any of them (maybe except for one or two). If the Canadian editors want the trivia, they can. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Dear Rocksong, in recognition of your chess-related work, I award you this barnstar. Thank you! Ioannes Pragensis 07:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

An MLC changing their stance/party/leaning after election is a reflection on them and will be judged appropriately after the time comes for their attempt at re-election. Labor/Liberals quitting and becoming inds reflect on them are are judged accordingly when their time comes for re-election. People voted for Peter Lewis, not someone else. People voted for Xenophon, not someone else (technically not correct, but you know what I mean). What i'm saying is, all members elected have stated their stances and what they believe in, and whether or not they stuck to them or changed their minds etc etc, they are judged at their next re-election. Nobody knew what Bressington supported - people weren't voting for her! Each MLC elected has had a clear position going in to their respective election, regardless of if they changed it during their tenure. Defection is not a valid comparison here. (again, i'm not arguing for any changes to the article one way or another, just debating the merits) Timeshift 05:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course people were voting for Xenophon - but people did not expect his running mates to get elected. Independents very rarely have running mates, and when has a running mate been elected? I did say that technically people did vote for Bressington due to voting for Xenophon above the line, but I did have the emphasis on technically. In respect to people not getting what they voted for, don't take this the wrong way but that is a generalisation and a copout. These are different circumstances. You vote for the major or minor parties based on their policies or your political leanings and expect them to vote certain ways. Whether they do it or not is irrelevant - that's a politician for you and the voters choose whether to boot them out next time they are up for re-election. Never in the modern history of the LC has someone been elected where their policies or political leanings were unknown to practically everyone. She can pretty much come up with whatever policy ideas she wants... it's a bit like "don't ask me any questions and I won't tell you any lies"... and people will never bother to take the time to vote below the line, because they either can't be bothered, or the average Joe doesn't keep up with politics apart from their nightly Channel 9 news intake - if they can find the time for that. Timeshift 08:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You say her name was not drawn out of a hat. Technically it wasn't, but in practicality it was. For all we know, she could have been the next Pauline Hanson (extreme example, I know). I'm simply saying that as people were voting for Xenophon not being sure if he would be re-elected, and with Xenophon guaranteeing to Bressington she wouldn't get in, it is the most unintended MLC election in modern LC history. When people vote above the line, those above the line, at least in theory and before the election, hold the same values and beliefs or thereabouts. Bressington's policies are drug-related and that's pretty much the extent of her contribution thus far. Who voted for Xenophon based on No Drugs? I thought it was No Pokies? Timeshift 15:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian Harradine also ran as part of a ticket in Tasmania whenever he was up for re-election (not that it'd have much chance getting two seats). Andjam 12:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

When a page has multiple templates (ie: the SA, VIC or QLD election pages) at the bottom that have a state govt template as well as the politics of australia template, is there a way to get one or both of them to show? I personally happen to find it annoying that a single template on a page will show, but two templates on a page will shrink themselves and must be expanded to be viewed. Any ideas? Timeshift 15:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What vandalism did I do to Uluru, you left message rvt Gnangarra(vandalism) Gnangarra 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You once wrote (12:15, 13 April 2006), "What I'd really like is rather than it be a single line in the intro, is have a whole section on his standing among the chess greats, because it is a greatly debated and interesting point w.r.t. Morphy." I have tried to do something somewhat along these lines. I would be interested to know what you think. You can leave any comments here or at the Morphy discussion page. - Louis Blair (October 29, 2006)

I am restoring them because I think they are useful external links, not spam. I cannot see that they are redundant either since these links give individual player statistics. See my comment on Eagle 101's talk page.

LittleOldMe 11:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said to Eagle 101"OK, so he is affiliated with the web site he is linking to, but I think this is one of the times to ignore the rules. Are you volunteering to add the links? I have no enthusiasm for doing the work even though I think it is a great idea. I say let's encourage this editor."

Hi Rocksong, I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Links to chessworld.net - you are welcomed to contribute. Greetings, --Ioannes Pragensis 17:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I don't know what to do except to let Andjam cool down ie. I won't engage in a revert war or anything. If you can get him to spell out what his objections to stating the obvious are. Albatross2147 11:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW I once got a Barnstar for reverting vandalism on the JWH page. That's irony innit? Albatross2147 12:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rocksong. Good to see that my pics of Adelaide and the English cricket team are generating attention, which shows everyone is awake at least. I took the photo from Windy Pt, yes, but the photo is of the Windy Pt Park to the east I think? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It was heavy handed because socialists kept removing it as it was "too american orientated"! PMA 13:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

hi,

i changed the name (and introduction) of 'daddy long-legs spider' to Pholcidae. yes, in my opinion all spider family pages should have taxonomic titles. the english wikipedia is not only for natural english speakers (unlike for example the german wp, which is only for germans, austrians and the like), and so several of these names generate confusion. just check the several common house spider, southern house spider, domestic house spider, house spider and so on. i mean, "house spider" is a different thing in each region. --Sarefo 13:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, go ahead with the moving of info from Pholcidae to Pholcus phalangioides. I myself am not an expert on Pholcidae either, so i could not decide which information is specific to P. phalangioides, and which is generally on all Pholcidae, but what you proposed sounds like a good idea. thanks :) --Sarefo 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up where I've still left a bit of a mess on various articles! By the way, you state on your user page that you're a Baptist—out of interest, which church do you attend? michael ^talk 04:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi , I was hoping you might be able to offer your opinion for the MPL issue on this page or this page. Cheers. Timeshift 16:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi rocksong, just have a furthe sugestion about whatto do with policies, would apreciate yout viewJUBALCAIN 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Ideas? There's no SA Liberals wiki page. Timeshift 08:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm enjoying what you're placing on your user page—perhaps you should write a 'Commonsense guide to Wikipedia' to help everyone out! michael ^talk 01:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was more a wry on-the-fly observation. I don't actually think that any group is out there to specifically vandalise the page (like you said, there's just more anti-Christian people online), I've just noticed how often FF gets hit in comparison. I certainly don't hold any petty vendettas against any group. People are to be judged on their merits, not the labels they are slapped with; and conversely, the labels can't be judged by the people they're stuck to. michael ^talk 03:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Heya Rock, hopefully the citation, although brief, is reputable enough to satisfy concerns. As always I may have lingering unintential bias on the newly created 1975-1980 elections so please review them and add to the substance and quality that is Wikipedia, but be warned, I am rather protective of the things we take for granted today that Whitlam introduced to Australia during his term of power between 1972 to 1975 :-) Timeshift 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the category. Nice improvement! JStripes 13:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete got removed by Scott, but now it's on AfD. Rather than just leave again, I will give it a chance. You are welcome to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mars Bar. Timeshift 14:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rocksong,

Apologies if you're already aware of this, but I'd like to let you know that the second Adelaide Meetup will take place on Monday 23rd of April at ZUMA Caffe, 56 Gouger Street, Adelaide. The meeting is at 7:30am for breakfast with Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 2 for more details and indicate if you might attend.

Thanks,–cj | talk 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
NB: The above message is being delivered to users who are listed at WikiProject Adelaide or in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia with AutoWikiBrowser.

The problem to which you refer in your restored eidt is that there has been a fairly vigorous campaign by an editor who styles him/herself 'Solascriptura' to edit/shorten/improve/vandalise the article. Most of his/her efforts have been devoted to section on St. Paul's thought, from which whole sections were excised. You were but a passing victim. I cannot be sure how you offended but you might be entertained by further broadsides on the Talk page. Roger Arguile 08:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please delete this after you've read it. I am seriously at my wits end with this whole Wikipedia thing. I know that the way in which I edit is a frequent target for critcism, some of it probably fair, but I know of no article I've edited that isn't much-improved now thanks to the discussion that my changes have provoked. Now I find that a group of editors, some of them admins, are tracking the changes I make and reverting them with a view to making a point about my netiquette. Just this evening I rewrote the SA election article only to be told that I was a vandal and I was destroying other peoples hard work and I was undermining the AfD process. Any suggestions on a way forward would be appreciated. Maybe, though, it's time to leave. Joestella 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right, although I'd given a 3 yesterday, and he already had another warning related to edit warring within the last week. Orderinchaos 09:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rocksong, I was just wondering why you reverted my edits to Peter Costello, i don't think they were ignorant. (Peter jones 01)

Well "ignorant" is a bit harsh - for that I apologise - but your edits certainly were wrong. Peter Costello is deputy Liberal leader but not deputy PM, and this can be verified at all sorts of sources; and Tim Fischer was never deputy leader of the Liberal party. Rocksong 07:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• He is not deputy leader. There is leader of a political party and deputy leader. For example: Kevin Rudd is leader of the labor party and Julia Gillard is deputy leader, if Mr Rudd wins the next election he will become prime minister and ms gillard will become deputy PM.

If you look at John Thwaites who is deputy premier of victoria, it says clearly that he was deputy leader of labor and when labor won the election he went to deputy premier,

"As Deputy Leader, Thwaites became Deputy Premier" - from John Thwaites

I know it is a deputy premier, not PM, but it is still the same thing he was deputy leader and then when labor won the election he became deputy premier of victoria.

I know what it says on the sources, i have read them, and it says Deputy Leader - 1994, which means that when liberal won the election in 1996 he would have gone to deputy prime minister, which he did not, therefore he must have withdrew and gave the position to Tim Fischer. Obviously the source website has not been updated.

Trust Me, Peter Costello is not deputy leader of the liberal party Mark Vaile is. (Peter jones 01 07:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Read this then: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1702003.htm Rocksong 07:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read that but i am still not satisfied, i will contact peter to ask for clarification. I will send you the email when he replies. (Peter jones 01 06:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

I was not part of any such discussion (not sure who was) but would have enjoyed giving input. Sorry. michael ^talk 06:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw your note on Michael's page. The "religious factions" discussion was basically Blnguyen and I ranting an raving about people using Wikipedia for POV pushing etc., with meatpuppetry and the like - Blnguyen and I have a history of dealing with a couple in particular :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, your comments at the Village pump [[2]] were referenced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grünfeld 4.Bf4. As I believe the editor who remarked on them is misinterpreting the substance of the discussion there, I'd like you to clarify your position so that a fuller understanding can be reached. If the AFD closes before you get a chance to respond, feel free to comment on my talk page and on that of the user. Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

<editorialising> How extraordinary!

Just goes to show how much of a factional branch stack hack she really is. Fancy embarking upon a political career without having back up training. Rather than joining Macquarie bank, she will be on welfare (or so she tells us). I hate this cliche, but in this case it really does show how much out of step she is with the community. I added the quote when I wasn't logged in. I will find the actual ABC radio transcript for it, because the whole deal was that bizarre.</editorialising> Grumpyyoungman01 09:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? I agree. One of the strangest things I've heard a politician say. Peter Ballard 12:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your view/decision on my Afd nomination.  Administrator "Sr13" used its summary judgement authority to execute an exceptionally speedy (4hours 39minutes) "Speedy Keep", thereby retaining in Wikipedia another plagiarized article.  And that, IMO, trivializes Wikipedia.  It is an act that is contrary to the Wikipedia Foundation's principles.  Those principles are, as I noted in my reason for nomination, clearly expressed in the "Five Pillars" and "Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources".  Obviously "Sr13" acted on its assumptive knowledge rather than its factual knowledge.  Plagiarism of public domain documents is acceptable and legal, but only (again, IMHO) ex-Wikipedia.  Enough said, and thanks again.  K. Kellogg-Smith 14:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources includes the sentence, "Copying public domain encyclopedias (such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica) and using those articles as a basis for a Wikipedia article on the subject is perfectly OK." Now I disagree with that policy, and argue it is not OK, at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#When does verbatim copying from a US government website become plagiarism?, but the fact is that is the current policy, unfortunately.

On further reflection, I think you're right anyway, because Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources continues, "Copying other reference works is generally not appropriate." Peter Ballard 12:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, Administrator "SR13" didn't bother to read the Wikipedia article on plagiarism, which I cited in my AfD nomination. Obviously "SR13" relied on its personal opinion and lay knowledge about what constitutes plagiarism rather than knowing the accepted definition(s) of the term, as stated in article I cited.  Plagiarism is plagiarism, no matter what the source.  In the case of "Duquesne Spy Ring", the author's plagiarism was wholesale — 5,000 words copied verbatim, with photos — to 'create' the article and then take credit for its creation while trying to hide the actual source of the article with a deceptive template.  In my book "Duquesne spy ring" was plagiarized, pure and simple, copied verbatim. And I nominated it for deletion for that reason. K. Kellogg-Smith 03:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've created a section on the WikiProject chess talk page to discuss how we should categorize Soviet chess players within Category:Chess players by nationality. I'm interested in what you think, so I invite you to weigh in with your views at WT:CHESS if you like. Quale 05:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of the scene where a passenger asks for some light reading and gets handed a one-page leaflet entitled "Famous Jewish Sports Legends". =) Cheers, cab 06:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Australian general election, 1974. Timeshift 01:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Found the answer. Can't say i'm suprised though. Timeshift 10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry but you are wrong on Soviet defectors from Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) which were part of the Soviet Union in 1940-1941 and 1944-1990. So, Karlis Ozols as a Soviet citizen, along with many other Baltic chess players (Arlauskas, Dreibergs, Endzelins, Jursevskis, Laurine, Mednis, Tautvaisas, Vaitonis, Zemgalis, etc.) who escaped at the end of WW II to West, was a Soviet defector! Mibelz 7:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.peo.gov.au/students/library/history.html - Janine Haines, first female to lead a political party. http://www.peo.gov.au/students/library/pages/0281.html - Janine Haines, first female leader of a political party (Australian Democrats 1981-1990) - I agree, it is a bit strange that no woman has lead a political party in the past. Perhaps they mean a political party that holds seats? Timeshift 09:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I've realised one of my objections wasn't correct. See Talk:Janine Haines. Peter Ballard 23:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you consider it synthesis? It is not synthesis. See Race and intelligence (test data)#Jews. This is perfectly referenced in the "Race and Intelligence" studies. Is that considered synthesis?

Unfreeride 02:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer at Talk:Chess, so other editors can contribute. Peter Ballard 02:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)