Talk:Michael Danby

Danby's preselection

• Strictly speaking Danby will not be preselected until the Public Office Selection Cttee votes, which I think will be on Thursday night. But his 75% local vote assures his endorsement.
• I cannot provide a published source for the preselection voting, since it has not been reported in the press (not as newsworthy as Hotham, obviously). I conducted the count and I can tell you that Danby polled 277 votes to van Leeuwen's 89, with 2 informal. You can take my word for it or not as you please. Adam 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's OK to assert things without published sources? I'm struggling to keep up with the complexity of the rules here. DarrenRay 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what the "things" are. Most statements of fact in articles are not contentious and don't need to be sourced. If I write "Mark Latham was born in Sydney," that is not a contentious statement and doesn't need a source unless someone challenges it. If I write "Mark Latham is clinically insane," that is a contentious statement (although perfectly true in my opinion) and a reference must be provided. Personally I think source-fetishism is taken too far at Wikipedia. Other encyclopaedias don't provide sources at all, but that is because people trust the editorial processes at those encyclopaedias. Since Wikipedia has no editorial process at all in the sense that contributors can write whatever they like, more referencing is needed. The trick is to strike a balance between referencing all contentious statements and not cluttering the text with citations. Adam 08:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam, The only reason I reverted your link was that it should really be to the original source, the AFR. Is this link not available? Subscriber only? cheers, 198.208.16.221 03:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 03:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ellipses in quotes

Is is reasonable to provide a quotation with so many ellipses? Without going to Carr's webpage, there is no way to verify what is in the gaps. This is not necessarily aimed at this qupte in particular (though a reading of the article will determine the honesty of the selection) but a general query...

"My view is that Australia is at war," Danby wrote, "at war with a new form of totalitarian ideology as evil as the fascist and communist forms that the democracies fought during the 20th century... The enemy in this war adopts the rhetoric of Islam but it is in fact quite alien to the traditions of Islam, and particularly to the traditions of Islam as practised in Indonesia. Some call this ideology Islamofascism, others jihadism... As a social democrat, I believe in a pluralist Australia. I believe Australia should accept, and indeed welcome, migrants and refugees from all countries, including Muslim countries, and that we should prevent victimisation of Australian Muslims. I reject the view that all Australian Muslims are potential terrorists. I am always careful to distinguish Islam from the extremists who misuse it for political ends." (see link below)

Any comments? Danke 198.208.16.221 09:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I see a grand total of two elipses. The link is there for anyone who wants to read the full text. Adam 09:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote could be paraphrased a bit, to cut down on length. Xtra 10:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It was put there to counter the LaRouche allegations that Danby is anti-Muslim. Have the LaRouchies gone away? Adam 11:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms that Michael Danby is anti-Muslim are highly relevant in the article. Danby's neo-con POV has to be couner-balanced by other POVs, as stipulated by Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Cognition 08:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As you see, Xtra, the LaRouchies have not gone away. So I think the quote is still needed to counter their slanders. Adam 08:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

But vandalistic edits and other nonsense can be reverted out. Xtra 08:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

When you get Cognition banned for POV-pushing and stalking (he has suddenly developed an interest in Cuba and in Indigenous Australians because I am editing at those articles), I will agree with you. Adam 09:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, There is only one POV in the article. I see no slanders. Your response is a little disingenuous.

Ok, there's 2 ellipses. But how much text is removed? The link is to your website, not the AFR. Does this link exist? I think that would be preferable and largely release you from any accusations of bias. Further, You don't own this article and you are not the only editor. I can place it on my watchlist lest the LaRouchies return. The other option is to take out all "race/religion" references. After all, they don;t form the core of Danby's politics, do they? 198.208.16.221 03:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Apologies, Adam. I wrote the above before reading the History page...Feel free to keep slapping down frivolous links.. 198.208.16.221 03:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is no link to the article at the AFR site, so I got a PDF from the Parliamentary Library media service and stored it in my website's server. The article does not actually appear at my website.
• If you want to remove the whole section dealing with these accusations, I have no objection. It is only there because the LaRouchite Cognition made the accusations in the first place. However I would be very surprised if he allowed you to delete it. If the accusations appear, the rebuttal to the accusations must also appear. Adam 03:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Sunday Sun Herald article

I would love to hear from Rebecca about why she deleted this sentence:

"Labor MPs Julia Irwin and Jennie George have accused an advisor to Danby, Dr. Adam Carr, of using Wikipedia to "blacken the names" of Danby's opponents.[1]"

Not notable? Not verifiable? Embarassing to Wikipedia?

We should try to steer clear of self-reference and OR here. Just stick to the facts as reported in the article. I realise this makes it hard for Adam to defend himself, but we may assume that the paper will be examining his edits very carefully, and they should pick up on his statements on his user page(s) where he specifically denies "dirt files", if they are planning any follow up. --Jumbo 09:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you rather over-estimate the professional standards of the Herald-Sun. This was a plain and simple smear-job: they had no interest in the facts of the matter, with which they were fully acquainted. Adam 09:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Just concerned that we were using your talk page as a source. If this story goes nowhere then we should pull it out of the article. --Jumbo 09:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Xtra, the article as it stands reads:

A Sunday Herald Sun published an article where it quoted Labor MP Julia Irwin accusing an advisor to Danby, Dr. Adam Carr, of using Wikipedia to get "dirt on people". However, these accusations were strongly denied by Carr.

The specific allegation of getting "dirt on people" hasn't been denied by Adam anywhere except on his talk page. This is a small point and I'm not going to make a fuss over it, but your wording goes beyond what we can actually use without self-reference and OR. You've also messed up the wording and removed the wikilinks. In an article that may well be the focus of media attention, I think we should follow established Wikipedia policies. --Jumbo 10:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The allegation is also disproved by looking at what I actually wrote about Julia Irwin. Adam 10:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the more relevant question whether the entry should be included in the article at all? What does it offer the casual reader of the page? Barely nothing of any import. It only serves ot make Wikipedia look like a vindictive whinge session. Please feel free to repond to this, otherwise I plan to cut out the reference. 138 08:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is more relevant to Adam Carr. Unless this turns into a story with legs, it should be removed. I suggest giving it a week for the Sunday paper to come out with any followup, and if there's nothing, then pull it out of this article. --Jumbo 09:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be growing legs. [2]

Factiva and the Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre both only have one article each (the Herald Sun article) about this. I don't think that equates to "growing legs". Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If they are legs....they're pretty stubby and useless. I plan to yank the reference as they have offer almost nothing to the casual reader.Any objections? 138 03:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I support removal of the reference. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed

I've removed the para about Julia Irwin, Adam Carr and the Sunday Herald Sun. Here's a copy:

The Sunday Herald Sun published an article where it reported that an advisor to Danby, Dr. Adam Carr, had been accused of using Wikipedia to "blacken the names of MPs." Labor MP Julia Irwin was quoted saying that Carr was "getting dirt on people." However, the accusations were strongly denied by Carr.[3]

(Hmm ... I overlapped edits with User:138, who stole my line about the Inquirer item before I even wrote it ;-)
Reasons:

1. This article is about Michael Danby, not Dr. Carr, Julia Irwin or (the topic of most interest to most people reading this) Wikipedia.
2. Incidents like these are common and non-notable in politics.
3. The newspaper report is (to be very polite) not a very impressive piece of journalism.
4. Julia Irwin got her facts wrong, but we shouldn't. If we retain this stuff, we should add text explaining that it wasn't Dr. Carr who put the offending material in the article. A long paragraph about one minor incident involving one of Danby's staffers would unbalance the article.
5. This is just another inter-factional spat in the ALP. They've been going on for decades. Outsiders such as me find them very tedious; I understand that some of the participants do too.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good call, and good rationale. So I'll just say "what he said". Rebecca 06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

David Southwick - To decrease Jewish votes in Melbourne Ports?

Mr Adam Carr - you state that Southwick spent quarter of a million dollars on his Liberal campaign. What is your proof? A statement by Michael Danby under parliamentary privilege stating that is not proof. Please explain?

As you state that Southwick ran deliberately to decrease the Jewish votes in Melbourne Ports (which would not realistic help Southwick to get in politics since only 10-15% of Jews live in Melbourne Ports and it is the Greens that gets Michael Danby into parliament and the Jewish vote would not make any substantial difference)? I do recall that David Southwick contest a pre-selection against another Liberal contender. Did Michael Danby during 2003-4 have any Labor Party members challenge him for a preselection? Because it is unfair to say that Southwick was pre-selected because of the religion he and his ALP opponent worship. I look forward to the former employer of Michael Danby MHR, Mr Adam Carr for a response. Kind regards, Greg LibDeepThroat 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over Michael Danby and Division of Melbourne Ports articles in Wikipedia

Sent Date 08-09-2006 6:11:21 PM

From "catonbishop" <catonbishop@lycos.com>

To <info-en-q@wikimedia.org>

To Whom It May Concern:

In the Michael Danby article it states "At the 2004 federal election, the Liberal Party ran a Jewish candidate, David Southwick, against Danby, hoping to win Jewish votes that had previously gone to Danby. The Liberals secured a two-party swing of two percent, lower than the Victorian and national average swing, and not enough to overcome Danby's 5.7 percent margin."

In the Division of Melbourne Ports article it states "At the 2004 federal election, the Liberal Party ran a Jewish candidate, David Southwick, against Danby, hoping to win Jewish votes that had previously gone to Labor. The Liberals secured a two-party swing of about 1.5%, lower than both the national and state swings."

Those articles were stating that David Southwick, Liberal Candidate for Melbourne Ports ran against Michael Danby in order to decrease his Jewish votes. There is no evidence that that is the true reason why Southwick ran against Danby. However there was political and media hype that it was the first time Australian Federal politics that two Jews have run against each other (these articles were altered with those similar words). Yet people like Adam, Rebecca and Petaholmes have reverted it and stated that there is no evidence of a politcal and/or media hype over Danby vs Southwick. My evidence is the Australian Jewish News, the Herald Sun and the Australian newspaper during the 2004 Australian Federal election campaign. I accuse Adam, Rebecca and Petaholmes of being pro-Labor and making these articles a bias for the ALP when they should be apolitical and be objective.

I ask that the sentences that relate to Southwick deliberately running against Danby just to decrease his Jewish votes should be removed from Wikipedia immeidately. Please find attached the sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Melbourne_Ports

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Danby

Thank you for your attention

I look forward to your response and actions

Yours faithfully

Caton Bishop

NPOV?

This paragraph needs expanding imo:

Danby has sometimes been accused of being hostile to Muslims or to Islam. He countered this accusation in an article in the Australian Financial Review in November 2005.(see link below)

So we have a link to Danby's side of the story, but nothing is said or linked to about the accusations against him. I've currently put a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  in, I think the current information should be added to or referenced. Psychobabble 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This dates back to the stuff that was inserted in the article by the LaRouchite Cognition. It can probably now be removed. Adam 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it's objectively non-notable or non-notable because editors you don't like* mentioned it? Cause it actually sounds like the sort of information which might be useful for an uninformed but interested reader to know and the fact that he wrote an AFR article rebutting the allegations (which I've just notice isn't actually linked "below") indicates to me that it's the sort of thing which is notable enough to warrant at least some external linkage so readers can figure out what was going on. On a more general note, this article and the references section in particular is a mess. Mind if I put a cleanup tag in or is that pointless? And it's a shame that the article has absolutely no information on what Danby has done in parliament, policy positions, advocacy, committees, media attention/statements etc. I'm sure there are editors (I don't know if you're too close to do it, but surely there's someone) who could make this more than a 3rd rate piece with very little information. Psychobabble

*Perhaps for good reason, but I haven't delved into that mess and don't intend to

• It would be notable if the allegation could be sourced to someone credible, rather than to LaRouche crackpots. The article I cited provides an effective refutation of the charge, but at the moment there is no charge to refute.
• I don't think this article is much better or worse than most of the others we have on backbench federal MPs.
• I have agreed not to edit any articles on Australian politicians (except to delete obvious defamation and vandalism), so someone else will have to do any improvements you think desirable. Adam 11:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous trolling

Will be deleted as often as it appears. Adam 14:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user, whom Adam Carr doesn't want you to hear, wrote:

' Danby's former membership to the Liberal Party '

I recall chating to Geoffrey Connard, a former Liberal State MP and he stated that Michael Danby was a former member of the McKinnon Branch of the Liberal Party. Connard stated that he left the Liberal Party, because "he felt that there was no future for him there, so he joined the Labor Party." I prefer to remain anonymous but it would be nice to find tangible evidence that Danby was a former member of the Liberal Party and add it to the article 203.213.97.205 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

' "The only Jewish member of Parliament" '

I beleive this statement is wrong because Roger Price and Greg Hunt both have Jewish mothers and in accordance to Jewish law, they are also Jewish. To state that Danby is the only Jew is wrong. Then again, once Mark Dreyfus wins the seat of Isaacs, there will be more than one Jew in Parliament anyway and Danby will lose his status as the so-called "only Jew in Parliament" 203.213.96.116 05:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

DavidRudolf 15:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you listen here ADAM CARR - I once had membership in the Liberal Party in the Bentleigh electorate. I am providing information that I have heard from the Hon Geoffrey Connard himself and he told it to my face that Danby was a former member of the Liberal Party. I kept myself anonymous, because I don't want people knowing who I am. Now I've provided my Wikidentity, so make a response! LibDeepThroat 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, comments like "Now you listen here ADAM CARR" are inappropriate. Please be civil. Secondly, information you "heard from" various people is original research and unacceptable for Wikipedia. We can only publish what we can verify via reliable sources. This is the case for all articles on Wikipedia, but particular so for biographies of living people. It may help you to read through the pages I have linked to. Sarah 11:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Danby's former membership to the Liberal Party

I recall chating to Geoffrey Connard, a former Liberal State MP and he stated that Michael Danby was a former member of the McKinnon Branch of the Liberal Party. Connard stated that he left the Liberal Party, because "he felt that there was no future for him there, so he joined the Labor Party." I prefer to remain anonymous but it would be nice to find tangible evidence that Danby was a former member of the Liberal Party and add it to the article LibDeepThroat 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam Carr stated:

• Danby has been active in the Labor Party since he was a teenager (see the photo at the Peter Costello article). When and why would he have joined the Liberal Party? If he did, there will be witnesses and records. Where are they?

I never said he was a member of the Liberal Party. These are the words of Geoff Connard. Maybe he joined the party when he was a teenager, was there for a month, didn't like it and then joined the ALP. Anything possible. But who really knows? Like the Liberal Party is going to give an ALP member like yourself Mr Carr their party records. <redacted by Sarah> That's why I did not put it on the wikipedia articles, but it would be vandalism and it would have a lack of proof. LibDeepThroat 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained above, your information is not acceptable for Wikipedia unless you can provide some reliable sources that verify it. Additionally, I've removed your speculation about the mental state, truthfulness etc of another person. Please familiarise yourself with our policy on biographies of living people (BLP). Comments such as you made here are not permitted on any pages of Wikipedia and that includes talk pages. Sarah 11:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"The only Jewish member of Parliament"

I believe this statement is wrong because Roger Price and Greg Hunt both have Jewish mothers and in accordance to Jewish law, they are also Jewish. To state that Danby is the only Jew is wrong. Then again, once Mark Dreyfus wins the seat of Isaacs, there will be more than one Jew in Parliament anyway and Danby will lose his status as the so-called "only Jew in Parliament" LibDeepThroat 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam Carr said: *Danby is the only federal MP who identifies himself as Jewish. If there are other MPs who are technically Jewish, they have chosen not to identify as such in public, as is their right.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LibDeepThroat (talk • contribs).

I don't know about "technically Jewish," but Greg Hunt and Paula got married at St John's Anglican Church in Sorrento. I find it hard to believe he would marry in an Anglican Church if he identifies as Jewish. You will need to find some sources if you want to say he is Jewish or "technically Jewish" or whatever. Sarah 11:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

According to M Grattan in this morning's Age (2/2/07), Danby was one of only 3 ALP MP who did not sign the petition for David Hicks' repatriation. Any comments? Is this worthy of addition? 198.208.16.221 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger Price is Catholic, was married in a Catholic Church and attends Mass. He'd no doubt be startled to discover that anyone thinks he is 'technically Jewish'. Jeendan 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the circumstances of any Member of Parliament, under Jewish law a person with a Jewish mother is a Jew, regardless of what religion they practise (see Jean-Marie Lustiger for the best-known example). But individuals also have a right to identify, or not identify, as they choose, with any religious or ethnic community. Danby is the only member of the current federal Parliament who identifies as a Jew. Adam 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And in any case, who cares what religion people are identifying with? Michael Danby, Roger Price or even John Howard could suddenly convert to Buddhism, or Judaism, or become Jedi Knights if they wished. Without evidence that it affected their lawmaking it would be a complete irrelevance.Jeendan 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In Danby's case it certainly does affect his views and actions in some areas, and is therefore a notable fact which the article needs to note. Adam 04:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be an interesting question whether his views and actions are specifically influenced by his religion in itself, or whether they are influenced (as everyone's are) by his religion only as part of his overall character. When considering an issue, does Mr Danby make a decision on the basis of an overall philosophy which incorporates religion, upbringing, experience and so on , or does he specifically measure the decision against his Jewish faith? I suspect only he could answer this, and it's an academic point anyway.

Being the only (or if people prefer, one of a small number of) Jewish MP's is notable enough for inclusion either way, just as it is notable that Graham Edwards is the only MP in a wheelchair, or that Brian Harradine was the longest-serving Senator. Jeendan 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to state that any MP other than Danby is Jewish, they must provide a reference. Otherwise it is just hearsay and thus original research.
• I didn't say Danby's views and actions were influenced by his religion. I said they were influenced by his being Jewish, which is not quite the same thing. Obviously his views on the Middle East, and less obviously his views on national security and foreign policy generally, are thus influenced. Adam 07:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you know if there have been any other recent Federal MP's who have been Jewish? None spring to mind but my political knowledge doesn't stretch far outside of NSW. Jeendan 08:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Pharez Phillips (Prot, Wimmera Vic, 1901-06), Isaac Isaacs (Prot, Indi Vic, 1901-06), Vaiben Solomon (FT, South Aust, 1901-03), Elias Solomon (FT, Fremantle WA, 1901-06), Max Falstein (ALP, Watson NSW, 1940-49), Syd Einfeld (ALP, Phillip NSW, 1961-63), Joe Berinson (ALP, Perth WA, 1969-75), Dr Dick Klugman (ALP, Prospect NSW, 1969-90), Dr Moss Cass (ALP, Maribyrnong Vic, 1969-83), Barry Cohen (ALP, Robertson NSW, 1969-90). I haven't checked but I think that's all. Also ALP Senator Sam Cohen (Vic, died 1969). The only Jewish Liberal has been Senator Peter Baume. Adam 08:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The diva advert story

The story does appear in The Age, so it's not about the person being there or not. But after reading the article, this simply doesn't belong in the article. The story is literally 1 paragraph long, in amidst many other "life" stories. Adding this here gives undue weight to a minor story. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we shouldn't be trying to record everything that is published about a given subject--only the things that have the most weight for the overall story. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits (2011)

I have removed two sentences at the end of the article which were not sourced. It is a basic rule of Wikipedia that all statements of fact must be sourced. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Alp watcher, August 2013

User:Alp watcher added some text, that User:Frickeg suggested was "defamation" and reverted. Alp watcher restored the material saying that it was sourced.

I'm not happy with the material either, so I've:

• Added the word "allegations" to one paragraph, to more accurately match the reference.
• Deleted one paragraph because the cited ref does not say that proceedings were suppressed (which is the main clause of the deleted sentence).
• Deleted the section "Intimidating behaviour towards women" because:
  • The cited ref says the Greens were outraged - but I don't think that's necessarily "attracting controversy" - controversy would require some other (than Dandy) party to express a differing opinion. (The ref uses the word "controversial" to describe Rhiannon, not Danby.)
  • The ref does not say Danby intimidated anyone - merely that he "described" Rhiannon.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Percentage of Jews in Melbourne Ports Electorate

I'm not entirely happy with the insertion of the sentence "Jews only make up about 10% of Melbourne Ports Electorate." at the beginning of the [[Michael Danby#Jewish representation|Jewish representation] section. I seems to be a little out of place, not fitting in with the rest of the paragraph. Given the contents of the section, the Jewish percentage of his electorate may be relevant, but perhaps some rewording is required. Was his Jewry a significant factor in his election? If so, we should say so explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Danby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603131824/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/MEMBERS.HTM to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/members.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603131824/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/MEMBERS.HTM to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/MEMBERS.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparent COI editing

Hi all, please be aware that this article is periodically edited by Melbourne-based IP editors with no other edits on the project to remove content unfavourable to the article's subject. Thanks. Cjhard (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)