Talk:2007 Australian federal election/Archive 2

message: Is there any reason why someone keeps on deleting what are cited by the media as the main issues in the lead-up to the election? One would think that a list of those topics most highly cited by political commentators as election issues would be worth mentioning in an article on the election. This is the text I added:
Issues expected to play the highest importance in the upcoming election campaign include Howard's controversial advocacy of nuclear energy, global warming policies, new pro-business Industrial Relations laws, increases in interest rates, the corruption in the AWB, Iraq war policy, and Beazley's personal unpopularity.
Okay, it isn't great, but it is kind of hard for people to work on improving it when it is constantly deleted. I honestly can't see why people are citing this as original research, each of these issues gets major play in the Australian media in regards to the 2007 election. 
Eg http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20801241-5007146,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20782414-5006301,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1788660.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/next-to-the-beazer-protesters-sounded-mildly-irritated/2006/11/30/1164777724420.html
etc etc
These are the big issues, you could probably add water to the list too. So perhaps try to fix up the section rather than just delete it. Sad mouse 21:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixing the section is easier the more decent stuff there is to work with. "Predicted by the Australian media" is better than the original "expected", but still seems quite weaselly. However, the main problem is that most of the references given don't actually back up what is claimed in the sentence. It is original research to take the issues you see most mentioned in the media and say that they are predicted as the highest importance issues. (It's arguably even OR to say that they are the issues most mentioned in the media.) Yes, it's worth mentioning important issues, but it's hard enough to do that well aftdr the election, and takes even more care now. JPD (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also not comfortable with the issues being mentioned. I agree it seems like original research and too open to bias. -- Barrylb 03:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, the section is open to bias, but we just have to police that as a group. To try to impart an understanding of the election to our readers without some discussion of the key issues would be impossible. I would suggest listing the issues as identified by the major parties (easier to verify) - the media will take their lead from there. Joestella 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 election issues 

message: I was watching SkyNews earlier today on Austar, and they showed a newly revised opinion poll showing that popularity has shifted, with Howard at 45% and Rudd at 43%. Now, does anyone have a concrete source we can use for these numbers? CeeWhy2 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nwe opinion polls 

message: It seems that both on Firefox and IE, the table for current senators under the senate section do not display. The toggle option already shows hide, so I click on it, nothing happens, click on it again (as show) and only then does it show the table. Are other people getting this? Timeshift 10:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The default should be fixed now.--cj | talk 11:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Senate table

message: I'm trying to figure out why the stats im using for the pendulum (source here) are different to those in the marginal seats table used here... does the marginal seats table use margins based on post-redistribution and my source pre-redistribution, or the other way around? Timeshift 15:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text accompanying the table in the article claims that the figures there are post-redistribution. (A source really should be given for those figures!) The other table you link to includes Gwydir and not Flynn, so it would appear to be pre-redistribution. (It's not clear to me what publication this table is from, but the URL also hints that it may have been published before the redristribution!) JPD (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've  it. Timeshift 17:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've found a source and will make corrections and finish the pendulum when I can. Timeshift 09:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's still safer and to show the post-redistribution result as opposed to the pre isn't it? Timeshift 10:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever table we end up using, it should have, either as a footnote, or more clearly as part of the table, something saying where the redistributed figures come from. As Adam says, they are only estimates, and we need to say whose estimates they are. JPD (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Differing margins

message: I have removed the two lists of old people who are apparently ripe for retirement. Either source retirement speculation or leave it out; age has never been a barrier to serving in parliament. Joestella 19:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was a useful list at an earlier stage, but most if not all of those on that list have now confirmed that they are indeed standing. Rebecca 22:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's not compile such a list in future. At least not without credible retirement speculation for a given MP in the media first. Joestella 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old people in Parliament 

message: That list of issues looks a touch biased to me. I suggest that the big issues will be:
# the economy
# education
# health
I don't think anybody cares about AWB to the extent of it swaying a vote, and I am surprised to find it listed as one of the major issues. --Pete 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the best way to tackle this when I worked toward getting the 2006 South Australian general election rated as one of Wikipedia's featured articles is to simply include every single issue you can find as long as you can provide citation for it - that way there can be no claims of bias. And also, the issues section does not belong in the lead. Timeshift 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reworded it a bit. Have removed AWB. + I agree with Timeshift, it shouldn't be in the lead. Rafy 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The South Australian article, of course, includes a bunch of issues that achieved no profile in the campaign – the text concedes as much. A better starting-point is what politicians say the big issues are; or failing that, what voters tell pollsters the big issues are. Joestella 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: I'm not too sure Preferred prime-minister/2PP ratings should be included in the top table below the pictures of Howard and Rudd. To put them in a table like that is to present them as fact- yet they are merely a reflection of a poll of a relatively small - albeit representative - slice of the Australian population. By all means keep the table of poll results futher down the page because that explains the results are not fact - just a poll result. The 2PP of the last election should probably be kept in the top table because it is an accurate reflection of an actual election result. If one wants to keep the Preffered PM and 2PP section in the top table it should probably be labelled as "AC Neilsen Poll - Preffered PM" and "AC Neilsen Poll - 2PP"  to reflect that these are just poll results - and not fact. Might be worth including Newspoll results there as well. Hope I havent put anyone out and rest assured this is not a critisism of the person who included these stats in the table, in fact thanks for taking the time to try and improve this article. Cheers ronan.evans 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Remove them from the top table, especially since there are multiple pollsters. Rocksong 01:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This table is the product of a long discussion and is an attempt at a standard. There is a field for caveats and such to go in the footnotes. But the best objective estimate of the leaders' standing among voters is absolutely and vitally relevant to a campaign. If there's a case for ACNeilsen or Roy Morgan rather than Newspoll, I'd like to hear it. But if you want to change the table, you might as well change all of the similar tables - and discuss it here: Template talk:Infobox Election Campaign. Joestella 14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree with you that Newspoll is far more reputable than the other polls - but you seem to have entirely ignored what I said. Point is that poll results are not 100% accurate and this should be noted rather than being presented as an iron clas fact. ronan.evans 09:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Top Table

message: Joestella why did you delete the list of retiring MPs and Senators? PMA 08:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is retained in text, although I question its relevance. The people listed are all backbenchers. I continue my objection to mention of MPs' ages as justification for retirement speculation. Joestella 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retiring MPs 

message: Opposition leader Kevin Rudd demanded an early election to take place in April 2007 after being attacked in parliament over his links with Brian Burke. "If you had an election now, you'd have to have a separate half-Senate election next year. It just shows his inexperience. He doesn't even understand how our political system works," Mr Howard replied. ... 
That Rudd called for, and Howard ruled out, an early 2007 election is relevant to the issue of timing, the subject of this section. Although history will not judge any such speculation kindly, the fact is it's a major issue now. It didn't look good for Rudd, granted, but that doesn't make coverage of it POV. I'd be interested to know CJ and Alex's objections to it. Joestella 14:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the issue isn't and never was an actual election call, Rudd was just politicking as usual - demonstrating the over-reaction of Costello and Co. by saying that if they really felt the sky was falling in because of the Burke stuff then they would call an early election, it was also a means to make fun of Howard and how bad he was polling at the time.  Howard (also politicking) decided to take the call literally and mocked the 'calling' for an early election, deliberately missing the point... and it is only columnists such as Shanahan who look for angles from which to spin their own political philosophies who would think that it is or ever was a real issue.   The paragraph you put in there was not about the timing of the actual election, I don't think you can seriously suggest that Rudd actually thought that Howard might (or should) call an early election, it was just part of the day-to-day spin from both sides which had absolutely no substance from start to finish. WikiTownsvillian 14:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is my understanding that in Wikipeadia you need to provide sources in order to include content not to remove, anyone can challenge content for any valid reason, the responsibility is on the person who wants to include the content to achieve consensus that the content is appropriate.  WikiTownsvillian 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well if you can't meet my burden of proof, I say name yours, sir. Joestella 15:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ) I didn't say I couldn't, I just said I didn't need to because I'm not trying to add the new content.  As for to what level you would need to prove your case, you need to show me sources from a neutral, notable reporter (Having a wikipedia article and/or a blog does not make an author a significant political reporter or mean they are respected in their field) that makes me or a consensus agree that the statement is notable and neutral. Ta, WikiTownsvillian 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudd calls for early election 

message: The information is retained in text, although I question its relevance. The people listed are all backbenchers. I continue my objection to mention of MPs' ages as justification for retirement speculation. Joestella 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they really have this rule? Could you show me a link stating it? It sounds ridiculous to me that the ALP would discriminate on the basis of age! For a party that considers itself to be more inclusive than the Coalition this seems like one heck of a double standard. ronan.evans 09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they do. It isn't always applied - MPs can request that the party executive waive the requirement, but it often cdoes the retirement of MPs approaching 65. Rebecca 01:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement 

message: What happens if John Howard doesn't win his seat?
:In the unlikely circumstance that John Howard loses Bennelong but the coalition still retains a majority of seats, then a new Liberal party leader will need to be selected by the party after the election who will then become Prime Minister. Timeshift 00:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect, Timeshift my friend.  Astute election followers will remember that during the 1998 election, Kim Beazley faced a similar scenario.  Due to a massive swing in 1996, Beazley's electorate of Brand became the most marginal seat in Australia, with just a handful of votes keeping him in office.  Consequently, as he lead Labor to the 1998 poll, many pundits were speculating on the possibility that Beazley would lose his seat but Labor would win the election.  In this scenario, there is an option whereby one of the elected government members would forfeit their position and allow the elected leader of the party to occupy the seat, thereby allowing him to govern the nation.  Accordingly, were Howard to lose Bennelong yet the Coalition get back, Howard would still be prime minister as long as the party elected him as their parliamentary leader.I elliot 17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The by-election would have to occur first though ;-) Look at 1929 - Stanley Bruce not only lost the election, he lost his seat. Did get a by-election organised and parachute back in? Nah, he waited till 1931, got his seat back, then let Lyons be PM :P Timeshift 04:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Timeshift is right. An electorate cannot just swap members, there has to be a by-election first. And for that to happen there has to be legislative action, requiring election of a speaker in the new parliament. Much easier to just elect a new leader. Kewpid 11:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Timeshift is right. An electorate cannot just swap members Maybe you should actually look into this before making such a statement.  As I said earlier, under this exceptional circumstance, that is exactly what will happen.I elliot 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please point me to any sort of constitutional or legislative provision that would allow such a thing to happen? Kewpid 04:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I elliot is simply wrong - there is no possible way an electorate can "swap members". If the Prime Minister was to lose their seat, another member would have to resign, thus creating a by-election for the PM to run in. There is no such thing as "exceptional circumstances". He could remain PM in the interim, as Rafy explains below, but he would have to contest and win said by-election if he wanted to remain in parliament. Rebecca 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rebecca is exactly right. Maybe it is instructive to look at John Gorton, who was Prime Minister for a short time without being a Member of Parliament. Following the death of Harold Holt, Senator Gorton was selected as Liberal leader. While there is nothing to prevent a PM from being in the Senate (and many Senators have been senior ministers, eg Gareth Evans), such a PM would face practical difficulties. Gorton resigned as a Senator and contested a by-election for the seat of Higgins (inadvertently vacated by Holt), which he won. --Pete 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  It does not require legislative action. When there is no speaker of the house, the Governor-General may issue the writs for a by-election resulting from any vacancy. (see sections 33 and 37 of the constitution). The Prime Minister could retain his commission for up to 3 months (section 64), in which time the by-election would have been held and he would again be a member of parliament. Rafy 05:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens if John Howard doesn't win his seat? 

message: Rather than get in to a revert war, can people please state which image they prefer (this or this), and why. Timeshift 04:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Timeshift, I actually prefer the old one (second in your links), I do think he looks a bit strange in the new one (first in your links), maybe it is just my screen. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 05:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I also prefer the second (outside) one. I'm not sure what it is about the first, but it's not very flattering. He's looks like he's grimacing. Peter Ballard 11:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's pulling a non-flattering face in both of them  - it's just that the second one is lower quality, so it doesn't show as much! JPD (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wouldnt it be better to use the party logos? This isnt a prime ministerial election. Rafy 11:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no prime ministerial elections, because prime ministers exist in the westminster system as leaders of their party. They are very important because they are the ones who influence who people vote for. Look at the ALP vote during Beazley and during Rudd. I think of it, simplistically, for a US comparison, as presidential election + legislative election = australian general election - we are choosing which party to govern, ergo we are choosing which leader to be the next Prime Minister of Australia. Timeshift 15:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second image is going to be deleted unless the source is provided, anyway. JPD (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it not a crop of a shot that Dr. Carr took? Michael talk 10:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the references to first and second are misleading. This one is a crop from an Adam Carr image, and is tagged as such. I can't see any sign that this image uploaded by User:Dr Michael Black, and now tagged as having no source, is a Carr image. JPD (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Rudd4.JPG. Michael talk 10:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. It's not even a crop - just a lower resolution. If we want to use that image, we should actually crop it, and it woudl be much more suitable. JPD (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rudd photo

message: Okay, this may seem like a stupid question so please bare with me. Why is it that it states the the Rudd Campaign needs only 16 seats to win government in the info box when just above it says that the government has 87 seats to Labor's 60. Surely that means that there are 27 seats needed by Labor? What have I missed? I know that 12 of those seats are Nationals seats, but if they are in coalition then shouldn't their combined number be the target for Labor? Couldn't the Liberals still form government in the Coalition with the Nationals despite being smaller than Labor? Sorry, I have searched and found no answer to this question of mine. Any help is appreciated, cheers! Chocolatemax 10:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Labor have 60 seats and the coalition have 87, if Labor gains a seat from the coalition, what happens to those two numbers? Ok, now keep counting :-) Timeshift 10:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i.e It's a zero-sum game -- Rafy 11:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: But then there's the 3 independents. So let's put it this way: there are 150 seats, so a party needs 76 or more to have a majority. So Labor needs 16 more to get to 76. Peter Ballard 10:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Swing of Seats Needed. 

message: I know the campaign hasn't officially started yet, but I think we should have a section of the page or a new page that details the lead-up to the election. Maybe a good starting point could be Rudd becoming Labor leader. It could detail policy releases, scandals etc. Just a thought, Rothery 12:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign section/page 

message: It's beginning to get a tad outdated, as the coalition have released their broadband plan, as well as carried out radical aboriginal reform. Lots of issues have occured. I would write them up if I weren't afraid for a tad of bias leaking of my fingers. Timeshift 16:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest trimming it rather than expanding it. I'd be tempted to delete the last 3 paragraphs of the section, leaving only the first (which is at least based on hard data). It's a little early to say what the important election issues will be, and Wikipedia shouldn't be crystal ball gazing. Yes I know issues keep popping up all the time, but it's not Wikipedia's job to be a running news commentary either. So unless a group of people want to put a lot of work into it (to keep in NPOV and with appropriate emphasis), I'd suggest keeping very short, at least until the actual campaign. Peter Ballard 00:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues

message: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/elections/fed2007/polls2007/ - hasn't worked since last night AFAIK. Does anyone know whats up with ozpolitics.info? Timeshift 00:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this might help? WikiTownsvillian 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ozpolitics is back up Rafy 11:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timegraph polling link

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Liberal1.JPG - as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Howard#New_image - should be removed, consensus appreciated. Timeshift 10:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments arent even taken with a grain of salt mr anonymous - talk pages are to explain why. Saying "seems reasonable" is not a reason to include the photo. Again, as per WP rules, there must be a source. Simply saying it was scanned and we take it on good faith is not reasonable. Timeshift 11:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: OH what nonsense. 66 days is the maximum time after dissolution . dissolution need not occur at the time of notice.
In the current circumstance, if John Howard says today, September 21, 2007 that the election will be January 18,2008,
then that is definitely what it will be and we will have more than 66 days notice.
202.92.33.210  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTICE at most66 days 

message: haha... you've got to be kidding... Timeshift 15:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Howard Pic

message: I think the table is getting too big, does someone have the skills to turn it into a graph? Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 23:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I don't have an issue with it's size. Timeshift 01:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A graph would be a much more effective way to present it, whether the size is acceptable or not. JPD (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I prefer the table, and I think the current size is fine. --210.49.145.34 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious as to why newspoll is the one opinion poll that is shown in detail, while glossing over the others. Even wiki is following the media obsession's obsession with treating newspoll as the main authority of voting intentions. Ah well. While I don't think the table is too big, I'm wondering what it's going to be like in a couple of months. Once the election is called, newspoll will run weekly (heck I think they polled every five days or so last election) which will mean the table will stretch out over a page. This is assuming the table stays once the election is called/finished, of course, but you see my point. Once it isn't easily readable in the space of a screenshot, I think it becomes too big and unwieldy. GreenGopher 07:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Galaxy seems to like being the odd one out with bizarre polling like 53-47 (see http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/elections/fed2007/polls2007/), Roy Morgan's polling is up and down more than the sun, and ACNeilsen only releases monthly polling. Newspoll is well respected, has been around for a while, and don't seem to produce bizarre polling (again see the above link for comparison). Timeshift 07:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would actually be good if we had a graph with all four polls, Ozpolitics style. The information would be more accessible, would be able to show trends, and wouldn't bias any single poll. Someone just needs to plug all the data into excel and create the graphs I guess. Recurring dreams 08:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with Recurring dreams. JPD (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I made the ozpolitics link so prominent in the lead for the polling section of the article - it really is the best resource for polling and is kept up to date with each poll released, I have not seen it more than 24 hours out from a release of a poll. If someone could replicate the graph with their own skills and include all four, it would be better than the current newspoll table. Other tables of interest are further down the page, such as 1996v2007 polling comparisons, and entrail polling showing that the downward trend isn't nearly enough to get it close to 50/50 by the end of the year. Timeshift 16:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent. Maybe we can increase the size a little? Recurring dreams 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to you, I wouldn't object. I left it at default thumb size to leave it up to the user's browser's prefs. Timeshift 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: An updated betting graph has been put up recently as well. Eagerly anticipating tomorrow's Newspoll! Recurring dreams 08:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Australian publish it on their website the night before - which is tonight ;-) Timeshift 08:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the page, Newspoll has 55% ALP 2PP down 4%. PPM has Rudd 48% steady, Howard 38% up 1%. Timeshift 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Care to add some details of how it is poorly designed? That's the least you could do, seeing as we don't have a properly licensed version. If it's easier to make your own or ask for relevant permission, fine, just don't sit there sniping. JPD (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The layout is dodgy. Compare to Bryan's. The dates, the fonts, the lines themselves, it just seems very "not right" compared to his. I don't have the graphing skills to advise how to improve. I'm already over it, despite the fact the quality of the article has just been drawn back. Frankly, I don't care to understand the policy, i'll keep doing as I do, and you keep up your image-deleting. Timeshift 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who is interested can see my reply to this comment at User talk:JPD. I can't take seriously a critique that doesn't bother to say more than "dodgy" or "not right", but if someone else has specific concerns, I'm sure we could improve the image. JPD (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polling figures

message: Is someone keeping tabs on the addresses of editors here? Readers' confidence in the article, not to mention the whole project, will be significantly eroded if paid political functionaries are later discovered to have tweaked this article. Tony 09:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whom is this directed toward and exactly where is the POV in the election article? It's one of the most scrutinised articles on wikipedia, i'd guess more or less everyone in the project has it on their watchlist. What issues do you take with the article? Timeshift 09:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However if you refer to all the new members who've signed up since Downer's "we should fire people up to edit them" remark (see my user page) and regularly attack pages such as the one currently going on at Kevin Rudd, then yes I agree with you. Not sure about this page though. Timeshift 10:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm wondering whether the newly available site that can be used to exposed skullduggery is being used systematically to protect WP from underhand contributions. Tony 10:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they'd dare now. Anyway, regular editors have been keeping a good eye on this page for a while now. Recurring dreams 10:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV checks? 

message: I've run through the first few sections. Please consider my inline queries (sorry to be messy). Change in percentage or comparison of percentages needs to be expressed in terms of percentage points (Labor was 4 points ahead); after the first occurrence, you can abbreviate it to point. See MOS. Tony 11:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy-edit 

message: I find this one interesting—updated at least once a week, it has a running average of the five major bookies. Is it appropriate to include it in the external links? http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/category/betting-market Tony 11:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  blog site admissable?