Archives	Archive One (Apr06-Dec06) Archive Two (Jan07-Apr07) Archive Three (Apr07-Sep07) Archive Four (Sep07-Dec07) Archive Five (Dec07-Jun08) Archive Six (Jun08-Oct09) Archive Seven (Oct09-May10) Archive Eight (May10-Aug10) Archive Nine (Aug10-May11) Archive Ten (May11-Sep12) Archive Eleven (Sep12-Mar14) Archive Twelve (Mar14-Dec15)

Welcome to my talk page, where you are welcome to leave a message at the bottom of this page for any reason at all and I will attempt to respond ASAP. If you leave a message here, I will most likely reply here.

5,200+ watchlist articles and counting :)

There is no cabal. Mmmm, cabal....

Hi, saw your comment here. You might already know but historical maps are all available here on the fantastic website created by User:Pappubahry. Frickeg (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, thankyou very much! Timeshift (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example? I haven't spent time looking through every map, but they seem to work fine for me. Perhaps a browser issue? Frickeg (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as knowledgeable as you about Adelaide metro boundaries, but I've been comparing with Psephos maps and they seem pretty normal; maybe slightly different here and there, but otherwise fine. By "skew", is it a major noticeable thing, or something smaller? Frickeg (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like maybe a bit of a shortcut taken. You could always ask User:Pappubahry and see how he's organised them. Frickeg (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial LibStar talkpage message that he removed: Per my edit summary here - you can't seriously think the sentences were untrue. if you didn't, instead of slapping CNs, leaving the article looking a mess when it shouldn't be, why don't you actually redirect that time/energy to adding refs, like in the link?!. Based on your lack of any substantial response in your edit after that, it appears that you really don't care to do it, and much prefer slapping random cite tags to whatever you can find instead of finding and adding refs. I mean, I looked at your last 1,000 contribs, all you do is remove content and add cite needed tags and create AfDs and never actually add to the content of the encyclopedia. Every substantial edit you've made (those in bold), as far as your last 1,000 contribs go, is simply content removal in the minus bold red, as well as creating articles for deletion which is literally one hundred percent of your plus green bolds. CNs and content removals instead of ref finding, and AfD creation, is all you seem to do. It makes your contributions appear negative/content destroying (deletionist) instead of positive/content building. I realise the former is the easier path would attract those with nefarious intent, so how about you try and make an effort to take the harder path - put some effort in to actually improve the encyclopedia for once, LibStar. Timeshift (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you don't control how I edit. I didn't even put all those citation needed tags in the Hewson article. Uncited content especially in BLPs can be removed under WP:BURDEN. Wikipedia unfortunately is full of often erroneous statements or blatant pov that is not helpful. Your aggressive tone is unwelcome and you won't be changing my style of editing or content I edit. do not contact me again. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also made further remarks here. And no, I don't control how you edit, but if your response to the concerns I have over how you interact with wikipedia in such systemic, widespread content cn tagging and content removal, is to say, I don't control how you edit, tells me that either you fail to acknowledge the concerns with your edits, or you are making such edits intently at the detriment of the encyclopedia. We all remove uncited content, but we all also don't focus on just CNs and removals at the expense of absolutely everything else - but you do... odd. Don't quote me WP rules and say uncited content can be removed, clearly this is the case, and is how you get away with what you've been doing, but instead of taking that cheap, insulting path, how about you actually redirect that effort in to ref finding. IT REALLY IS NOT THAT HARD! I'm not sure what you have against finding refs. It's like you prefer to bring the image of wikipedia articles down with cn tags rather than build the image of wikipedia articles up with adding refs. Why on earth wouldn't you do the latter? Seems more and more suspicious. Timeshift (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for the second time , please do not contact me again. Is it that hard. You need to WP:CHILL. LibStar (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a) Is adding refs instead of going around and adding only citation needed tags and removing content so hard? If finding a ref is so hard and goes against what you believe in, then wikipedia is the wrong project for you. b) You need to stop WP:RULEing the regulars. You're clearly indicating you repeatedly have no reply, at all, to the concerns raised which just implicates you and your motives. Very poor form LibStar. I and hopefully others will be keeping a close eye on you from now on. Timeshift (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you find it so hard. I've asked you 2 times to stop contacting me. Shows a high degree of agitation and lack of self control on your part. For the 3rd time stop posting on my talk page. You are now pushing harassment. LibStar (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look here, you remove ANYONE'S post who doesn't agree with you... wow. Admins really should look over your history more closely. Timeshift (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, straight back to it. Incredible. Timeshift (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that someone should look through LibStar's contributions and reinstate any verifiable material that he has erroneously deleted only because it did not cite a source (if there is any such material). Whoever does this should of course add references to support the reinstated material. I do not, however, have the time or patience to personally trawl through more than 45,000 edits looking for mistakes, so I won't be the one doing it. LibStar should not be accusing anyone of "agitation" as that is a very nasty personal attack. In this instance it appears entirely unfounded. James500 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all aspects. I don't have the time or patience either - pretty much because he has the upper hand... it takes 2 seconds to add a cn tag but actually takes 1-5 minutes to find and add a cite. On the math, if it took an optimistic 1 minute for each of the 45,000 edits, that would be 31 days straight. Yeah, nah. He knows exactly what he is doing. Someone that literally never adds content and only adds cn tags/removes content/deletes articles can only naturally be seen as a negative to the project. Hard not to feel anything but that they want to nefariously damage wikipedia. Their above so-called replies and their own talkpage deletion of anything negative just backs that up. It's a real shame. Timeshift (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He may not have been an MP - it's too early in the morning here for me to chase it up individually, but at least at the beginning it was possible to be part of the ministry without it. The redlinked Henry Gawler in the same list is one example of this I have researched. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected something along those lines. Timeshift (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Gawler and Turner (Frederick Foote) were both solicitors to the Lands Titles Office and not MPs – see Responsible Government in South Australia, Volume 1, page 108. --Canley (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken! re scandal vs indiscretion vs incident. The ABC seems to like scandal though:

• "Francis Keany (29 December 2015) Jamie Briggs quits over late-night bar scandal in Hong Kong, Mal Brough stands aside over Slipper affair." ABC News

- (Merry Christmas!) 220 of ^Borg 05:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I used scandal as the term controversy is shunned upon. Though with little information (at this stage), overseas incident is an acceptable term for the moment. Timeshift (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, given time it may become a more scandalous, rather than controversial, incident. 220 of ^Borg 05:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this even have precedent? Has a federal MP quit a government ministry due to an incident that hasn't even been revealed? On a side note I find it ironic that in comparison Briggs can crash tackle another MP, and lie about it for 2 months, without consequence. Also, the SA Liberals need yet another issue as much as a hole in the head. Here in SA the Liberals' existence is just one long never-ending amateur hour. Timeshift (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that didn't take long. Should we still call it an "overseas incident" or should we upgrade the terminology? Timeshift (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this alleging 'sexual harassment? Yeh, I heard on 2GB he told her she had "beautiful eyes" and put his arm around her. He's 'dead', his wife will 'kill' him. His BLP doesn't mention the missus or 3 kids, yet. 220 of ^Borg 06:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think especially after the crash tackle cover-up attempt, Briggs would realise it's better to just admit it, as it will come out either way. Not admitting to it just compounds the issue. Seems like a long way to go on this. Gotta say, he looks like a pig - SA's answer to Troy Buswell? Needless to say, after just 7 years his political career is over. Who wants Mayo? My money is on Matt Williams. Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It is understood Mr Briggs told her she had piercing eyes, then later put his arm around her. As the trio was leaving, Mr Briggs gave the female public servant a kiss on the cheek."[1] Timeshift (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not what a married man with 3 kids should do. Troy Buswell I can't recall hearing of before, quite a 'controversy' section there. For politics I vote, usually, that's about it! 220 of ^Borg 07:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it begins. Fraser's trousers already...! Timeshift (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Media never forgets! They're probably scouring WP for 'dirt' right now! 220 of ^Borg 07:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abbott sleeping off a hangover in his parliamentary office during the stimulus vote. Gold. Yet some crazies still think he's the messiah. Lol. Timeshift (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uploading a bunch of images on SA politicians at the moment - do you prefer File:AAKirkpatrick.JPG or File:Andrew Kirkpatrick.jpg? I can't decide either way, and since you uploaded the first one I thought I'd ask. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, what a choice. A larger but grainier photo or a smaller but less grainy photo, both competing for a generous two out of ten. Can you include both in the article? If so, the choice for infobox is a toss-up. Timeshift (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, can't be too picky when it comes to this era, which is why I thought I'd at least upload it and then pick later. Same goes for File:EHCoombe.jpg and File:EH Coombe 2.jpg. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EHCoombe.jpg. Can you try and include secondary photos in said articles? Timeshift (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're probably a bit short for that at the moment. Still, at least the alternatives are up if somebody does expand them in future. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the feedback about the images. I found a bunch of random images of people I was interested in in a public domain book, and then discovered the State Library's public domain portrait archive, and since I have all this time on my hands over summer it's been a great way of killing time and brightening up these articles we've been working on. I've been really trying to find good quality images and crop them so they look good as portraits rather than just whacking whatever is there in the article. I've got 124 more images still to go in my current batch, and I am...a bit over a third through this collection. I'm enjoying putting faces to all of these names, and it's nice to know it's appreciated!

I am so absolutely not done with SA politics. It's become a bit of an obsession, and I still have a long way to go before I'm happy. My main projects at the moment are adding these images, expanding that batch of stubs you created (which have proven very useful for slowly expanding that content), and I want to go back and tidy up some of the older MP articles so I don't have to delve through ten paragraphs to find out where they sat and when and what offices they held. I'm also periodically delving into the by-elections: I just did West Adelaide state by-election, 1901 and Flinders state by-election, 1901 just the other day to accompany some of my MP rewrites. (Also, I'm going through the former councils so I can tie them in with the MPs who served on them - just did District Council of Orroroo and District Council of Carrieton last night. A lot of obituaries love to oh-so-helpfully go "Joe Bloggs was the local mayor for some time way back in the day" so these serve multiple purposes.) I've stopped on the state ministries for a while but I'm still making my way through them (with some help from User:Linkqer), and I also really want to finish my so-incomplete Lang Labor Party (South Australia) and break out state articles on the 1917 and 1931 splits to explain SA's particular flavours of carnage there.

The maps, I'm afraid, I can't help with: I have absolutely zero talent at that. I'm also better at more specific topics than really broad ones, but creating government articles is something I'm open to doing, especially with some help. I've just discovered the State Library of WA's spectacular clearinghouse for discarded books (I bought 50 on the first go), so when I pick up some SA-specific content I'll probably be able to do more there. (This is also why I might be mildly useful on 1943 - I grabbed a lengthy history of the Nats and a bio of Harold Holt that might reference that election, and they had umpteen books on Menzies which I didn't know I'd want to read but could always go back for in a few days.)

Plenty to go yet! Thanks for the message - I really appreciate the feedback. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think those ones could be okay, much as Beneaththelandslide was a massive loss: Playford and Dunstan were such massive personalities that the biographical parts of their stories tend to take up so much space that it shrouds out what their ministries as a whole were up to. They've both got book biographies out the ears (hopefully on my next clearinghouse raid), so I'll see what I can do when I get my hands on some. (As another example, I have Jeff Carr (the Brian Burke minister who is still sans article)'s autobiography sitting around, and I'm really interested to read it because he's such a boring character that he totally misses getting caught up in the drama of Burke's high-flying showboating and talks about what he and his colleagues actually did. I suspect it'll be bloody invaluable if we ever write an article on the Burke Government). Unfortunately, the only SA autobiography I've got so far is Brian Chatterton's, which is too obscure to do much on its own. I'll probably get stuck into some of the smaller fish first with governments: much easier to do, say, Richards Government, than Dunstan! The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am most of the time. I find SA isn't too bad in that department, mainly because the content was pretty sucky until all of us descended on it comparatively recently in Wikipedia terms (after the breadth of our coverage had expanded a bit) but I add it where I see it, and I'm trying to do some of the redlinks as I go (like doing the by-election if I do an MP who was elected at it). The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I created stubs on the missing early SA elections so we could fill them in over time and link them up with the content we do have, but I'm finding Trove incredibly frustrating for those early elections: it seems all the media (including the Adelaide press) covered the races at an individual electorate level and gave bugger all (or at least that I can find) easy useful coverage of the election as a whole. If you get a chance sometime, even just some small edits could brighten up those stubs a lot. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have what you are on, have a look at the format of the barnett article, you sure you wanted to do that? JarrahTree 01:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What, remove his first name and leave just his last name when mentioning him throughout the article? WP:MOS. Are you trying to make a subtle point i'm not getting? Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing whatsoever to do anything with the name issue. The ip stuffed up a format of a ref, and you simply repeated the same fmt issue. All I did was ask you to have a look at your edit, ass I assume you didnt spot the fmt change by the ip, or your reinstating it. JarrahTree 02:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of oopsies there, all good now? :) Timeshift (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nah, i dont read fully articles about people i have little respect for, I think the wits will make a mess of the country at a state and federal level, give you lots of chances for a lot of editing and making more tyops to make others happy for the next 18 months or more... :) cheers JarrahTree 02:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found another boo-boo, fixed? :) By the way, though i'm often guilty of it, you really should read articles about those in power that you have little respect for. Know thy enemy. Before going future-forward, one must know the past - or - to prevent making mistakes in the future, one must know the mistakes of the past... et al. Timeshift (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you reverted my change to Liz Penfold quoting the MOS. Can you point me to the relevant section please? The reason I ask is that having an image ahead of any texts causes problems when interfacing from Wikimeida Commons; this caused the MOS to be changed some years ago and I'm concerned that it may have been changed back without anyone realising the consequences. Best Wishes S a g a C i t y (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Timeshift (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks S a g a C i t y (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing that to my attention. As I hope is obvious from my edit history, that revert from me was not at all intentional. It is of course vandalism and I did not put that back on purpose. Apologies for not paying close enough attention. Vaze50 (talk) 12:00, 7 Aprizl 2016 (UTC)

Consensus was clearly established for the new infoboxes on the 2015 and 2020 UK election articles. There is an ongoing discussion for the 2015 article about changing that. You are very welcome to input into that discussion, but you should not WP:EDITWAR. You should establish consensus to change before imposing changes. This is standard Wikipedia policy. Bondegezou (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to revert as the israeli-only infobox has no consensus - you claim consensus on the talk page yet all i see is a small amount of talk and a lot of you riding roughshod in attempts to dominate. Repeatedly claiming consensus doesn't = consensus. See Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015#Lead infobox. Timeshift (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key discussion is at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015/Archive 3, but there's more in the other Talk archives. When that discussion was going on, that was the next election article. I also suggest again that you review WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD. Bondegezou (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for ignoring Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015#Lead infobox, for not discussing and for edit warring, and for continuing to ride roughshod. The infobox you're reverting to is used only for Israeli elections and no other. The rest of the world uses the infobox that 99% of all UK election articles use. Timeshift (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to put forth your arguments for what infobox to use. I note you are mistaken about the Israeli-style infobox, which has also been used for Dutch elections, while other infoboxes formats have also been used elsewhere (e.g. check out the discussions around the recent Spanish election). Whatever your views, please respect the community and do not make changes until consensus has been established. Bondegezou (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has now gone to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Truly embarrassing, what a disgrace. Timeshift (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - could you explain your reversion of Template:Timeline Australian PM Horizontal? I thought my version (with multiple terms for the same PM on the same line) was more informative - it shows much more clearly, for instance, the multiple terms of Deakin and Fisher. Thanks, LookLook36 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This just doesn't look right... particularly Menzies' second term. I doubt it's done like that in any other countries. But no matter, i'm not sure why it was even changed to a horizontal format. I've changed it back to the prior vertical format and added a comment to the article talk page. Timeshift (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thank you Timeshift I'll rework that section on Keating and East Timor so that it respects more WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. I agree, it needs more references to support both points of view. Thanks for the advice, cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how you could add more than the current existing East Timor content to this article without it becoming a clear WP:POVFORK with WP:WEIGHT issues. Instead of another add and revert, I would strongly encourage bringing your proposed additional East Timor content to this talk section first to see if there's any chance of it gaining WP:CONSENSUS traction. Until then, Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I've just reinserted that section on Mr Keating and East Timor. It's now been rewritten to observe WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, WP:BLP and WP:NEUTRAL - thanks Timeshift for highlighting that. Hopefully it is a lot more balanced now (oh, and changed the title). Please do not remove until it has been discussed on the talk page, so as to avoid another add and revert. I've added in about 4 articles that offer the opposing viewpoints, I may try to find more if people think it doesn't meet WP:NEUTRAL. IMHO a lot better to include this here, as opposed to it having it's own page in a larger article, or include with an article about Australia's role with East Timor generally. Please feel free to tidy up or to add more articles if you can find them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted - massive issues, WP:WEIGHT for starters - what rises East Timor above any other Keating-era area of discussion that it should elevate above all others to get its own section, and have an additional 3 lengthy paragraphs - very WP:POVFORK. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I already said theres no WP:CONSENSUS for your disputed change to the status quo, and to take proposals to this talk page so it can be worked out without starting an edit war. Remember that the onus is on you to get consensus for your disputed change from status quo and that the status quo is what is kept until such time as a new consensus might be found. Edit: Re-add due to edit conflict and re-revert. DO NOT EDIT WAR. Your change from the status quo is disputed so you cannot re-add it, the onus is not on me, it is on you. You have been around for a decade, you should know which way WP:CONSENSUS works. Cease your edit warring NOW or your actions will be escalated to admins. Timeshift (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you cease from threatening me in such a manner, I've tried to be polite here. You yourself indicated the section had NPOV issues. I've gone to a lot of trouble to fix those, and without discussion, you have removed the section. As you won't discuss it, I'll be raising this as a dispute with the admins. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with Timeshift. The material is also missing the somewhat larger points that a) Keating continued the long-standing Australian policy towards Indonesia and b) it was the Indonesians who were responsible for the atrocities, with Australian (unfortunately) having little to no ability to stop them. The referencing is also very poor given that there are now history books, academic works, etc, covering the subject. It's hardly a glorious period in Australian foreign relations, but should be treated fairly. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick-D - I am more than happy to include better references, but as you know, Wikipedia certainly accepts newspaper and journal articles as proper sources. As for whether Mr Keating's policy was actually right or wrong, that's not really what I am here for, I just want to reflect that certainly some people saw issues at the time (and I guess some still do). Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no good reason to use old newspapers (including op-eds by fringe dwellers like Pilger) as references for topics which much better and more recent references are available. To be frank, it makes you look like you're shopping dated material that matches your personal views around rather than seriously trying to develop a high quality and neutral encyclopaedia article. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D I do disagree on some of this Nick D, but I think better to chat about the section back on the Talk page, rather than clog up Timeshift's talk page, I reckon Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

Can you explain why you removed my edit. My edit was fairly neutral. It had reference to the ABC news article it had links to queer theory etc.

I would assume your not trying to gloss over the pedophilia agenda?

Any tips would be appreciated. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by FindOutTheTruth (talk • contribs) 08:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You sound just like George Christensen. Anywho... even you cannot bring yourself to attempt to claim your attempted changes were neutral... only "fairly" neutral. Your attempted changes are not neutral and does not even attempt to hide the fact you are cherry-picking references to express your minority anti-mainstream fringe (and dangerous) views. Perhaps look at the article's history and you'll see I was only the first of three users to remove your hate views. The fact your history shows you joined wikipedia and went straight to and only to that article for some opinionated but misinformed soapboxing which appears close to your heart - highly revealing in itself. In any case... the way wikipedia works is in the case of an edit dispute, the existing status quo remains and the contested new changes are kept out, until such time as the user attempting to introduce the disputed changes either a) manages to gain consensus on the article's talk page or b) realises the error of their ways and moves on. I'm not giving any help or 'tips' to the likes of you. Your moral shortcomings more than explain how you manage to convince yourself that your attempted contributions were somehow mainstream-acceptable. I'm sure you're currently sitting there thinking we're all just a bunch of 'queer gender theory marxists' or whatever strained slogan is all the latest rage in the Christensen/Bernardi 'silent majority' quarterly. Timeshift (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was added less than a week ago with a tag. Content should not be added with a tag. It should be added with a source. DrKay (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then take the 30 seconds to do so instead of taking the lazy deletionist way out. Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off. If you think I'm a lazy deletionist then you don't know shit. DrKay (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been directly copied from http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/03/2016-federal-election-pendulum-update.html, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I may have made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

…to give a woolly rat's bum over this election. I like Bill better than Mal, TBH. Malcolm could have been a bit more pro-active in changing Abbot's direction. "Steady as she goes!" is not the clarion call the Titanic needs.

Speaking of Clive Palmer, I'm finding the US election vastly entertaining, which is probably why Trump has done so well, clowns getting more eyeball views than pundits in the eyes of the media beancounters.

The ACT election looks likely to be a bit more fun than this one, moobs aside. The tram is going to be the big issue, and everyone is just waiting to kick Labor in the nuts over this Green-inspired lunacy. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if I was a closet Liberal i'd be annoyed too. Just a few days short of not even two years. So now it's the Abbott-Turnbull years - oh the irony! What. A. Waste. Meanwhile, we have mid-high school students that have never seen an SA Liberal government! I'm enjoying the campaign so far... any campaign both full of Liberal disunity and bickering and devoid of Labor disunity is always fun. The problem is thanks to Turnbull we've been in campaign mode since forever with the gun pulled only a week ago - not with a bang, but with a wimper :) Meanwhile, News Ltd and co are just bypassing Labor MPs they're so united, going straight for the wont-be-elected Labor candidates... they had better slow down if they want to run out early. If it were the ABC, just imagine uproar from the silent majority!! Timeshift (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just removed the last part of your post on this account's talk page. While you are correct to warn whoever is using this account that their conduct could cause problems, stating that you will report them to the media can be seen as a threat, including of WP:OUTING. I am sure that you did not mean for it to be seen as such, but similar posts have led to the people making them being blocked in the past. I've blocked this account to prevent the disruption from reoccurring, and please let me know if it crops up again. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Apologies for IP hopping, I'm on a cellular connection) - 1.144.97.73 (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you retain the improvements I made?

I don't understand what it means, again. And what is "alongside"? Contiguous states to NSW? Tony (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to re-add part of it. Usually the party that has a majority in NSW also wins the election. However, it's unusual that the concentration is so high at this election that half of all marginals are there and half again in WS. Timeshift (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the first claim (is it referenced? ... and there are notable exceptions, like 1975/6, arent' there?). But overall it's too complicated for me to understand. "Alongside" won't be understood by readers. Can you have a go at it? Tony (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Factoids like that don't need refs when it's all on wikipedia already. You can go back and look at the member lists and election articles. Yes, there are exceptions, which is why it says usually rather than always. I think it's ok, but if you want to re-word it without removing detail please feel free. Timeshift (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I do, I'll paste here first. Tony (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this? "While federal and New South Wales elections are usually won and lost by the same party at similar times, the 2016 federal election is unusual in that nearly half of all marginal government seats are in NSW, of which nearly half are all in Western Sydney and the other half all in rural and regional areas of the state, with no more than a few seats in contention in each of the other states."

But the logical connection between the first clause and the rest is still unclear here (to me). Wouldn't it be just as good in the lead starting after the first comma? Tony (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales the 47 of 150 federal seats, not New South Wales the state election...! Timeshift (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOW i get it. Does this work?

"While the winner of federal elections usually wins a majority of the seats in New South Wales, this federal election is unusual in that nearly half of all marginal government seats are in NSW; nearly half of these are in Western Sydney and the other half in rural and regional areas of the state, with no more than a few seats in contention in each of the other states."

But going by what you say, this would be in order:

"The winner of federal elections usually wins a majority of the seats in New South Wales, a state that apparently holds the key to the upcoming election: nearly half of all marginal government seats are in NSW; nearly half of these are in Western Sydney and the other half in rural and regional areas of the state, with no more than a few seats in contention in each of the other states." Tony (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So I'll insert that last one. Can you tweak only as much as needed with your greater knowledge of the topic, then? Tony (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it a little, is this ok? "Whilst every federal election after 1961 has been won by those that also won the majority of federal seats in New South Wales, etc etc etc". Timeshift (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louise and Charmian Faulkner disappearance. This was brought to my attention. I have to agree with the comment on the article's talk page - The Faulkner family or friends of the victims created the article as a way of bring attention to their campaign for justice. Nuke the article? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... why am I being asked? Timeshift (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I recognise and appreciate that you or others have worked on the article for a long period of time, I'd encourage you to check for any factual errors in the original rather than simply assuming my edits are wrong. Mqst north (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page. I'd encourage you to appreciate that as others have worked on the article for a long period of time, that you take substantial/large changes to the talk page first and gain consensus to make such changes. Timeshift (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AEC doesn't register HTVs, unlike ECSA. :) Frickeg (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a sense of deja vu... :) Timeshift (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Antony Green said on TV that there now cannot be another whole-House half-Senate election for two years; although there can be a House-only or a DD whenever. Is that correct?

Also, I'm keen to start this RFC. Can you advise as to pracitcal design? Tony (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First question - yes. Second question - practical design for the infobox, or the RFC? If the latter, I have extremely little experience and wouldn't be of much help. If the former, keep as is with lower house representation except remove those without official party status of five or more total parliamentarians? Timeshift (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers. Hmmm ... RfC seems like a lot of work if it's going to end in fizz and drama. I find the endless infobox a disadvantage structurally, and that there's undue weight given to Katter etc, just because they register as a "party" rather than an independent. Tony (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in many RfCs that i'd claim credit for instigating to varying extents. Perfect example here (with article edits to reflect as such)... I provided the key push-along-the-road contributions at the right points in time to have another RfC generated for the United Kingdom general election, 2015 infobox (!) to use the standard election infobox rather than the israeli/dutch election infoboxes. If you don't want to do the RfC yourself, just kick the can down the road and keep talking about and advocating for it and a numer of others will inevitably agree - the RfC will eventually be generated by someone else who agrees as strongly. It's not gaming the system, it's simply knowing how to get maximum efficacy from the system. Just call me Glenn Druery :) Nah, I like to think that unlike MANY users on here, i'm very much a contributor. Purist deletionists and procedure addicts can and do occasionally serve a worthy purpose... they allow me to avoid taking the low road - and I save time, effort and sanity in the process. Timeshift (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my opinion of only those with official party status getting in to the infobox is simply an attempt at compromise... something very lacking when it comes to our federal infoboxes and many editors. If I had it my way (and I once used to as I created 90% of the election articles) i'd have simply just Labor and the Coalition. They're the only two to have ever formed/led governments in over a century of history, and the only two to appear to be capable of doing so in the foreseeable future, and as far as I know we are the only country that actually produces a two-party preferred vote - and what's more the 2PP far outweighs the primary vote as a method to predict or expect an approximate number or percentage of seats. If anyone is unhappy with Australia's 2PP method, they should look at the Swan by-election, 1918 and think of the tories - who introduced full preferential voting specifically and unapologetically to avoid spoilage between the non-Labor vote and increase chances of Coalition victories - yet as soon as the system they introduced begins to advantage Labor for the first time after a century of patriotic service to king and country, they want to ditch it (mark my words, OPV in the Senate was implemented so as to normalise a federal OPV, and are now just waiting for the right time to make the House OPV too). But I digress... even at this year's election the non-ALP/non-LNP primary vote in the lower house was only 23% - less than a quarter - the majors still took more than three quarters of the primary vote. So until we foresee, or get, back-to-back national 2PP results that exceed 60-40/40-60 and/or the combined Labor/Coalition primary vote falls below 50 percent, the 2PP system/calculation is clearly not anywhere near broken, far from it. My 2c. Timeshift (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of that. And let me thank you for your untiring work on the 2016 federal election articles. Tony (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For several reasons I actually took a step back following election day this time around... contribution-free for 16 days afterward. It was very interesting to see how our ever-more-comprehensive-and-detailed content and record number of editors positively affected the quality and quantity of post-election contributions. Consistency among similar articles is immeasurably better than ever, which appears to have really provided templates for even novice users to easily contribute worthy content. I really was pleasantly and unexpectedly surprised at how many edits were made yet there were so few corrections I needed to make upon my 18 July return - even anon IP edits! As far as WP OzPol is concerned, it's a little sad I know, but I imagine what i'm feeling is somewhat similar to what parents feel when their offspring get their drivers license and start staying out some nights. In the past few years on OzPol i've done what I would have previously considered rather comparatively esoteric. I can't believe how detailed SA state politics has become, WP is immeasurably the most comprehensive resource for it now and makes the parliament.sa.gov.au website look like it was created in five minutes. Where to from here? Turnbull government-type articles for historic SA state governments? Seems like a logical progression considering how exhaustively comprehensive OzPol content is now - it has come a long long long LONG way over many years. It feels like finding worthy but non-existent subject areas to contribute from scratch to are as rare as hens teeth now. SA govt articles sounds good in theory, but getting the sources would be a whole new level of challenge, and that's an understatement. I'm not sure I have the drive and committment for such a challenge. Adding new content as new content becomes available, whatever OzPol subject/area it may be, is not anywhere near as satisfying and for the first time (that i've noticed) seems to be well handled by the inevitable imminent content contributor(s) and the inevitable imminent follow-up fix/correction contributor(s). Rates of vandalism detection and removal are sky-high. For the first time i'm feeling a little useless on here. Despite semi-regular sabbaticals (more in the past few years), perhaps the larger post-election sabbatical simply magnified how incredibly small and insignificant my role on here has become. Simply tinkering at the sides gets tedious after a while. This rant had been surfacing for a few days now, sorry this thread copped it :) Timeshift (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a significant role. All good. Sorry, do you mean "South Australian" by "SA"? Tony (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As always. Certainly not South African :) Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you are enjoying teh lulz? :-) --Surturz (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turnbull doing the crossbench dance when he didnt need to! So much for majority or nothing! I've been very amused with the various outcomes across the country. SA, wow... the worst Liberal Party of Australia seat and likely 2PP result in SA history :O 67% in Kingston?!?! Double digit margins in Makin and Wakefield? So much for the Gillard-born-in-Adelaide 2010 election theory! Oh the lulz! Better than any fiction! I can't believe how psephologically fascinating and interesting this election has been! Best. Loss. Ever. Timeshift (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a formal process to undelete Susan Templeman, or can we just do it now that it looks like she will win and the article would be created again anyway? Once it is exposed again, it can be improved and updated. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly not sure on the technicalities of that, but seems to be resolved now. Timeshift (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cabinet of South Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leader of Government Business. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Results of the Australian federal election, 2016 (House of Representatives) page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My ANI reply: I can't believe this contributor is so one-eyed! I am disputing the changes considering their repeatedly mischievous and increasingly POINTy past-few-days-of-history with the article (see article edit summaries and article talk page contributions - ensure when doing this everything is noted rather than skim-reading it and forming a potentially misguided conclusion). As their changes are disputed they require a consensus. If they believe their intentions have been and shown to be consistently pure and they have displayed required valid corrections, then perhaps they should wonder why after all this time, still nobody else has come along and agreed with them yet. Where's the consensus replies from other contributors that they believe they deserve? "Build it and they will come"... or WP:DONTBEADICK and they will come? Clearly they have not convinced anyone... perhaps they should reflect on their behaviour as to why this is. Their initial attempts to make changes were met with evidence to the contrary, having to correct them around six separate times for six separate wikipedia guidelines! It is clear that once this decade-long user experienced six guideline corrections in a row, they increasingly turned POINTy. Again, to anyone who looks in to this, I implore them to read the article edit summaries and article talk page contributions to see how much this user continued to change trajectory after each guideline correction. Massive glass jaw/pride it would seem... it's clear they just cannot handle being corrected, particularly repeatedly. If they're right, they would get that consensus and this would all go away. So they should ask themselves why that hasn't and isn't happening...? Timeshift (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mike Rann. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but WP:POINT says to wait for consensus. The onus is on the content changer to wait for consensus before re-attempting to make that change. I'm not going to play their game and run around looking for and presenting references just to have them move on to another one without so much as an acknowledgement. Despite a few days having passed, there is still a complete lack of any users agreeing with LibStar's raised points on the article's talk page. If their changes are so black-and-white correct then I would have expected several Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics users to have agreed with them by now and a consensus formed. Not a single ozpol user, or even a single user at all for that matter. I note that despite LibStar raising the ANI, you warned him first - was that just random? Timeshift (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, don't you get it? I'm not going to play your increasingly tedious POINTy games. I corrected you on the first six issues you raised with the correct guidelines - six times - which you didn't even acknowledge each and every time, and became increasingly POINTy which is clearly observable on the article's talk page. After the first six times correcting your incorrect understanding of wikipedia's article guidelines which made you increasingly POINTy, I had every right to disengage. I don't deal with tantrums nor should I. If you're so sure you're right and you're not being underhanded then you should be able to easily manage consensus without me. As you're so sure of yourself, you shouldn't have any issue waiting for consensus from other users - very reasonable. I drew the line and refused to continue to play your increasingly tedious games. After I provided half a dozen corrections to your first half dozen issues, you admitted you were encouraged to look deeper/be POINTy. I'm not going to and am not required to continue playing your games. I'm not going to go around playing your reference games. If you're right you'll get consensus from others. But it won't be from me which all things considered is justifiable - if anyone disagrees, just read the article's edit summaries and article talk page contents. No reasonable person would continue to hit their head against that particular brick wall. Timeshift (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my changes? I have already negotiated these with a few other contributors and thought I had an acceptable outcome. At least they did me the courtesy of an explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2016

Oz freediver (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're brand new to wikipedia so i'll go easy on you, except to say that your edits are clear WP:SOAPBOX. Timeshift (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are relevant facts. It is misleading to say it was "consistent with convention" while failing to mention that it goes against two bipartisan senate resolutions agreeing to changing that convention. The only reason for mentioning that it was consistent with convention is to legitimise the decision, especially if you then insist we must not mention the resolutions.

Oz freediver (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was just looking at the Preferred PM and satisfaction table, and wondering just what the relationship is between the two sets of stats. Do you know of any work done on it (there must be a long history of the stats by now)? Turnbull–Shorten preferred were 43–31% in the last Newspoll, but 41–26% in Essential—quite a difference for Shorten. But then you look at the corresponding satisfied–dissatisfied for each leader: satisfied was virtually the same between the polls for both, but dissatisfied 9 or 10 points less for both. I'm presuming the companies ask more-or-less the same questions of their respondents. Tony (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the question you are asking. I do not know the differences between polling companies' methodology. We are certainly not removing the leader rating tables if that's what you're getting at. Isn't there a 'percent' that needs changing to 'points' somewhere...? Timeshift (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshift: Did I suggest getting rid of those tables? Are you being sarcastic in your comment about percent and points? Not very helpful or collegial. Tony (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you ask..? Timeshift (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, because I value your input, and I'm suprised you seem to be acting negatively towards me. Tony (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. a) I do not know of any work done on the relationship between the two stats. b) Different companies have their own methodologies... eg: some companies don't push for a choice when a respondent says neither or undecided while some do, some will include only the first while some include both offered and when pushed, different companies naturally ask the question in differing sentences, some use approve/approval while others use satisfied/satisfaction, some might use Prime Minister and Opposition Leader instead of Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten and vice versa or some might use both title and person, instead of a straight satisfied/dissatisfied question some might use very satisfied, satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neither, somewhat dissatisfied, dissatisfied and very dissatisfied, and collate the first three as satisfied and the last three as dissatisfied which would produce somewhat different results... very much et al. There are just so many more variables when it comes to asking an inherently subjective opinion of a leader's performance. Is any of this new to your thoughts on the issue or do you have more particular questions you'd like to ask? Timeshift (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I realise now that I was under the mistaken belief that the "preferred PM" is mathematically calculated from the negative/positive numbers. Silly me. All is clear now. What you wrote is informative and interesting, and has helped me to understand it more. Sorry it took so much writing for you. Tony (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What gave you the impression that preferred/better PM is calculated from satisfaction/approval/dissatisfaction/disapproval? Sorry but I didn't realise this was the essence of your initial post. To me it came across as questioning the worthiness of the inclusion of PM and/or leader polling tables - apologies. Timeshift (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I must have expressed myself poorly. What gave me that impression was that I've seen composite figures (in the press, I think) arrived at by minusing one figure from the other. I was worried that this didn't seem to add up in the table. I understand now. Tony (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I believe your composite figures by minusing one figure from the other refers to "net satisfaction" (net sat), which is a media creation rather than a polling statistic. Some media outlets, particularly The Australian, prefer to use this, which I vehemently disagree with. Say a leader has a 35% approval and 40% disapproval... that would be a net sat of –5% (note the minus). 40% approval and 35% disapproval would be a net sat of 5%. But a 45% approval and 50% disapproval would also be a net sat of –5%, as would a 30% approval and 35% disapproval. A 30% approval and 25% disapproval would be a net sat of 5%, as would 50% approval and 45% disapproval. Any net sat figure can cover a wide range of sat/dissat figures, yet sat/dissat figures can only provide one net sat figure. The Australian started using net sat during the Abbott opposition years to hide Abbott's massive static disapproval rating (higher than the PM) and make him look more or less on par with the PM. Using net sat (a confusing term to most) doesn't look anywhere near as bad or make anywhere near as much sense as a disapproval rating of 50-60% (which any layman understands). Timeshift (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with your suspicion about the utility of that stat. Tony (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And ... here's the source of my fuzz, I realise. Seems like a good analyst, otherwise. Tony (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Timeshift9, I was just looking at the Mike Baird article and noticed the rating figures table is very out of date but could not work out how to update via the ref used. I've noticed you do a lot of poll updates and wondered if you could help there please? JennyOz (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no blanket rule on how to update all the types of tables. Trial and error got me and others where we are today. You can use more than one ref. Is there anything in particular you have an issue with? By the way, polls for voting and approval have completely crashed for both Baird and Turnbull, it's so well deserved. Timeshift (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just posting here because I cannot work out if or how to write a personal message to you consult you about this matter. I have noticed that one of the pages to which you have contributed quite a lot has had a personal tragedy recently so that the current information is no longer correct, but I can't think how this should be recorded in the entry regarding the person. (I would rather discuss privately if possible out of respect for the family involved.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseawoman1 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian politics/party colours/SA Greens has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you made this change on a few pages. What was your thinking? Superegz (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i'd fix a consistency blip and remove the superfluous "s" from the shortened party names in infobox seat listings, ie: Parliament of Australia. We use 'Liberal', 'National' and 'Liberal Democrat' without the s, so I removed the s for Green and Conservative. As each party is linked to its own article and there wouldn't be any reader whose interpretation rests on an ending s, it is clearly superfluous. Timeshift (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. We use "Liberal", "National" because they are short for "Liberal Party", "National Party", etc. The Greens and Conservatives both have the "s" in their name so calling them "Green" or "Conservative" is incorrect. It is correct to say "the Greens MP" or "the Greens senator", not "the Green MP". Frickeg (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it is correct to say Green or Greens Senator... both are party name short-hand. The term "Green Senator" can be found among Australian media outlets... Green senator Penny Wright to leave politics: SMH, Green Senator Sarah Hanson-Young slammed over asylum seeker treatment comments: Daily Telegraph, Green senator denies she'll stir up Papua strife: SMH, Green Senator and miners on transparency when dealing with overseas governments: ABC. Dropping the s when having already stated a party's name in an article is anti-superfluous and pro-brevity... so why not, if there is no ambiguity? Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And "Green leader Richard Di Natale"? It's just wrong, even if the media does it sometimes. They are not the Green Party, they are the Greens. One extra letter is worth it if it means we're accurate. (Also, three of the articles you linked use "Greens senator" in the text and not "Green senator"; the radio interview, obviously, uses neither.) Either way, it is long-standing practice in Australian articles to use "Greens" and never "Green", so this would need discussion if it were to change. Frickeg (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And "Green Senator and higher education spokesperson Lee Rhiannon": Greens.org.au? Timeshift (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page which refers to "Greens MPs" right over there on the right. There's no question "Greens MPs" etc. is more widely used, and is more correct. Frickeg (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And "Green Senator and higher education spokesperson Lee Rhiannon": Greens.org.au? Australian Green Senator Rachel Siewert: Greens.com.au? Green Senator and animal welfare spokesperson Lee Rhiannon: their site again? Thank goodness we are about to have our new Green senator: again? I would argue there is no consensus for whether there should be an 's' at the end. Not to mention, both Green and Greens are used. The media, even the party, use Green with gay abandon. As for what is more widely used, thank you for admitting that both are correct. "More correct"? Correct is an absolute not subject to gradation. Why such resistance? Is it really worth the effort when you now admit both are correct? As both are correct, let's not get in a frivolous tangle... there is no controversy, so why flirt with the idea of extended pointless time-wasting? Please can we just move on, surely there are better things on wikipedia to move on to. Timeshift (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there is a way that we have been doing this on Wikipedia for years. Gain consensus for a change, please. Frickeg (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Frickeg (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no consensus to always use an 's'. The idea that there is one is plain silly. Both are used and interchangeable. Timeshift (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article history has previously had 'green'. There is no consensus for an 's' (or no s either) as you claim. You eventually admitted both were correct yet you still think its worth multiple reverts when no consensus exists? Why not let the next 24 hours of community discussion figure it out? As to why you feel the need to engage in false consensus claim reverts over such a tiny technicality with such fast-pased gusto seems unusual. There is no consensus either way - or both have consensus - really, think about the tiny nature of what you seem to find so abhorrent. With and without the s is and has been used on wikipedia, countless media outlets, and in countless greens.org.au web pages. So why make it such an immediate problem requiring an immediate revert when it seems such a universal non-issue to everyone, not which of least the actual party...? Please take a step back and reflect on the universally interchangeable use by everyone. Timeshift (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article history has previously had "green", you said, but provided no links. Hmm, I thought, I don't remember that. I eventually found it - it has had "Greens" since 2011, so there is clearly a status quo. I wonder who might have changed it? Allow me to quote you from around the same time: if you wish to change the status quo it is incumbent upon yourself to gain consensus. thanks. So I don't think I'm the one making "false consensus claims" here. You don't get to say "oh, the article was like this SIX YEARS AGO, so BRD doesn't apply". Give me a break. You were bold, I disagreed, then YOU wait for consensus. I don't need to explain that to you.

I'm not going to revert again, but I think it is incredibly rich of you to be pulling this, given how often I see you revert newbies with the above kind of rationale. I freely admit that I'm tired and misspoke when I said "correct" and obviously meant "accurate" (as in more accurate), which I don't think anyone could dispute. I still believe, and maintain, that "Green" is wrong, or at the very least the kind of colloquialism we should be avoiding. You are wrong when you say both are used commonly on Wikipedia - I should know since I've been dealing with this stuff for years, and there is consistent use of "Greens" (when I searched for ""green" australia" - admittedly not a foolproof way of doing things - I found one use of "Green" in the 2016 article, and one in the mess that is currently Earthsave (political party)). I notice you have not disputed that "Greens" is more common, here or elsewhere. Forgive me for caring about this stuff, but I do care about consistency and there is absolutely no reason to be inconsistent on this. There is no space issue. You say it's superfluous, I say it's not, and don't you dare talk to me as if I'm having a fit over nothing since you clearly care just as much. Obviously I'm worked up right now, which is why I'm not going to deal with this any further tonight, but you'd better believe I will be raising it elsewhere to establish firmly what I'd argue is already a long-standing consensus. Frickeg (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, last thing for tonight, but for the record: 235,000 hits for "greens senator", 13,000 hits for "green senator". There is clearly a preference. Frickeg (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I call implicit consensus it is over something objectively incorrect, and larger than a single character - 's'. How does a single letter have consensus without so much as a discussion? Can a dash or full-stop have consensus without discussion? So what do you think of The Greens' use of Green? They control their branding, and the very same brand uses Green and Greens interchangeably, which inherently makes both Green and Greens correct - it is their brand after all. If they deem both as valid, who are you to say their own branding is wrong? "Green Senator and higher education spokesperson Lee Rhiannon": Greens.org.au? Australian Green Senator Rachel Siewert: Greens.org.au? Green Senator and animal welfare spokesperson Lee Rhiannon: their site again? Thank goodness we are about to have our new Green senator: again? So what do you think of the party's use of both Green and Greens? Somehow you are correct and they do not have supremacy? Do you work for them? If not, where do you get off overriding them, and seriously, why do you feel such a need to take on the party's acceptance of with and without 's' when it's not your place to do so? Please tell me where the platform is to board your bizarre train of thought, because the only semi defence i'm hearing is no 's' despite the party displaying otherwise has no implicit consensus. If you're going to use implicit consensus, then at least use it only when the change is substantial and is, y'know, a real problem. All this over the lack of 's' which the party also interchangeably uses. Using the implicit consensus argument for such an insignificant non-concern, an 's' which the party itself is interchangeably fine with (thank you for your research, 13,000 primary source examples is far from an oversight - you have clearly demonstrated my point), is not a pattern an editor would want to form. This is why I really struggle with your major intervention - it really does amount to nothing. Just bizarre. Timeshift (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with pretty much all of that, especially your characterisation of my arguments and actions, but I do concede it's silly to have so much Drama over one letter, although I continue to feel strongly about the issue. Furthermore I believe we are both now arguing about a lot of points that actually have nothing directly to do with the issue at hand. I regret my part in escalating this to the borders of incivility and hope that we can de-escalate the whole thing. As a result I propose we draw a line under this particular incarnation of discussion, and I will certainly commit to being more measured where it is raised elsewhere. Frickeg (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look over the weekend - a bit swamped until then. It's kind of a bit early for a candidates article, more than a year out from the election, but I suppose there's no real harm in it as long as we keep an eye on it. (And I didn't realise there was such an exodus brewing!) Frickeg (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think you went with the right option there. And as you say, a lot of action going on! The SA LC is the only legislative chamber that still regularly slips resignations by us (OK, WA occasionally) - I had heard nothing about Kandelaars until I read that article you linked. Frickeg (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that! But then again SA might be the state I'm least informed on (either that or WA). WA, with a bigger parliament, only has half the number of MPs retiring, and you have to assume there's more to come in SA given the time until the next election (at the very least, Snelling and Bedford are apparently going for the same seat, so unless they parachute the loser into the LC ...). And Labor had better preselect some women for the upper house, because that's getting pretty embarrassing. Not quite sure how they're getting away with it, unless there are no affirmative action rules in the SA party? I mean, 5 out of 22 is just a hopeless effort from all concerned. Frickeg (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to look at the LC in that way... the largest parties only elect 4 candidates each at any given election... factions, merit, et al all play a part. Use Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 2014–2018 to see how the parties perform at electing women - while 10 of 24 Labor MPs are women, only 3 of 21 Liberal MPs are women. Only 2 prior to Rachel Sanderson winning marginal Adelaide. Only 1 if you don't include Vickie Chapman, as without Ted Chapman she wouldn't be there. Though Isobel Redmond wouldn't be there if not for Stan Evans either. So yeah... Timeshift (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No disputing the Liberals are vastly more rubbish, but at the same time the SALC is the only chamber in Australia where the Libs are doing better than Labor when it comes to women (excluding the Tas LC, because that really doesn't count!). I know factions play a role and there aren't many gigs available, but that's no excuse, really. I was disappointed they didn't preselect a woman to replace Kandelaars; one can only hope they'll preselect them to replace Gago and Gazzola, although one would think there's a fair chance both parties will be dropping at least one MLC to NXT this time around anyway. Maybe NXT will pick up the slack. Frickeg (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly whipped it into line, I think. It still needs a redistribution summary and seats changing thing but I think I'll wait until they dismiss the ALP's challenge to the new boundaries for that. In a concession to the prematureness of the article, I have left inline citations for the time being, which can be removed later when we have a single candidate list to link to.

The 2018 article is looking in good shape! I'm assuming that's mostly down to you. I have one small issue that I wanted to raise, though (I am not sure that this was you at all but since you've done most of the article) - would you agree that there is currently a bit too much on the whole redistribution process? In particular I am thinking about the "Redistributions and the two-party vote" section, which is vastly undercited and also kind of a bit soapboxy in places, as well as mostly irrelevant to the election at hand. Would you object if I trimmed it down to, say, two paragraphs (from its current 8), or even eliminated it altogether and merged the few useful points into the pendulum part? I also wonder if the stuff about Sanderson/Adelaide in the pendulum section might be trimmed - it's much better cited and written, but is still a sizeable paragraph about a very minor kind of thing that happens every single redistribution. The record number of submissions of course deserves a mention, but I would think the whole thing could be adequately summarised much more succinctly. Frickeg (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was me, and therefore I don't agree there is too much content on the issue. I would say the redistribution in the current term is the most significant/historic/controversial and most media-covered redistribution in the history of SA, and possibly the most significant/historic/controversial and most media-covered redistribution in the history of Australia. I'm always open to suggestion - i'd be more than happy to consider changes, but if you can indicate what they would be beforehand, i'd be more receptive. Timeshift (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "Redistributions and the two-party vote" section is eight paragraphs long and has only three citations, which is obviously an issue - especially as many of them are asserting potentially controversial statements, and frankly by my reading it violates NPOV. We can't declare that the fairness clause was met, we need to cite someone doing so and explain their reasons, and probably also give a hearing to the many, many people who disagreed. The fifth, sixth and seventh paragraphs digress into discussion of historical results and issues with very unclear relevance to 2018 and I would delete all three entirely. And you know I'm at least as left-wing as you are, but the whole section comes across as very pro-Labor. I happen to think the fairness clause is idiotic, but at the same time the Libs have a clear case to make here, even if I don't agree, and this whole section is pretty much arguing the Labor case. It also deals almost entirely with the 2014 redistribution, which does not need this much text on a page about 2018. I agree it needs to be mentioned to provide background, but not as an entire section.

To be specific about proposed changes. I would leave paragraph 1 intact. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 I think could be condensed quite easily into one without losing any vital information, and require much more extensive citing. I would delete paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 entirely. Paragraph 8 currently has three voices defending the previous redistribution and none criticising it (and it was widely criticised), so I'd balance that up - probably remove Macintyre and one of Mousley's quotes, and add one from someone on the other side. I mean, at the moment we quote Weatherill saying how rotten Liberal complaints are without giving any indication of the substance of those complaints. Alternatively - and preferably - this whole paragraph could be removed.

I don't have much of an issue with anything under the "post-election pendulum" section; I tend to think the Sanderson stuff is a tad much but won't pursue it if you feel strongly about it. (The citations, again, could use some tidying though - those six ones in a row surely don't all apply to that one sentence? They should really be after each sentence - I'm normally not so picky about this kind of stuff, but when we say "Sanderson's position differs from her party", I kind of want a direct cite right after that.) I don't know that the text really belongs under that heading, though. If I were to make changes, I would probably incorporate both text sections into a single "Redistribution" heading, and then have the pendulum alone under its separate heading.

I'd be more than happy if you want to copy this to the talk page or AUP or otherwise get some other opinions, in case I'm completely off-base.

(As an aside - we'll also have to do something about that LC members template, because it's still there on the 2014 page but is now of course updated for the current situation. Are there any other pages on which this table is or should be used? It might be better as an actual table rather than a template.) Frickeg (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being specific... please give me several days to have a go at addressing them. Timeshift (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and thanks. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. :) Frickeg (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to have a go at it in the next 24 hours. Timeshift (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how's it going? Not to be a bother, but any further thoughts here? I came across the page again today and it still looks excessive and non-neutral. Happy to seek further input at WT:AUP in case I'm completely off-base. Frickeg (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i'm sorry, it's been in the back of my mind. I'll try and get to it soon, really. Apologies again. Timeshift (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stress! I know how things get. :) Frickeg (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a courtesy note to say I think I have to raise this on the article talk page. Not assuming any bad faith on your part - goodness knows my own contributions have been pretty erratic this past year - but I think we need some other opinions. Frickeg (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SandraKanck-crop.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Timeshift9, I would welcome a comment on my comment on the Robert Menzies talk page Brunswicknic (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grumbling because it took me so long to work out what you'd done. (I'm not grumbling with what you did. In fact, I think what you did was "an improvement" and is "a good thing".) I'm grumbling for two reasons, but my primary reason is that an edit comment of "fix" is no more informative than no edit comment at all. Yeah yeah, I know, I'm just a grumpy old man, and it's not entirely your fault that it took me so long to work it out, but never-the-less, that's not going to stop me grumbling. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Anywho, yes it is a huge improvement over the former. If you have a closer look you'll find i've done the same with dozens of early politicians, particularly pretty much all federal major party leaders :) Timeshift (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, you're referring to it. Yeah. Timeshift (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, (being a grumpy old man), I'm grumbling about the "non-obvious" (to me) implications of the somewhat cryptic (to me) edit comment of "fix". But hey, really, this is "no big deal". It's just that I didn't find "fix" a helpful comment (your fault) and that comment took me a long time to work out what you'd done (my shortcomings). No big deal intended - just trying to light-heartedly communicate. This is now a much bigger deal than I'd intended or envisaged. (And yes, it's not a situation of your making.) I'm happy to stop here (if you are.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I started with "Okay." And apologies if my reply seemed like an enlargement of 'no big deal' - it isn't. Timeshift (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a) Yes, I did note that. (Perhaps I didn't pay it sufficient regard - Sorry.) b) Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I live in what was once Ashford. I've had stuff in my letterbox referring to Badcoe. How much would like to enhance my education by providing me with some relevant wikilnks? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any guides for the 2018 election or for new electorates yet. Apart from these two documents and the Badcoe map at EDBC, and Electoral district of Badcoe/Candidates of the South Australian state election, 2018, and the Labor margin increase from Ashford on 1.9% to Badcoe on 4.2%, i'm afraid I have nothing else to provide you. Today (well, yesterday as of 90 minutes ago) was certainly eventful for SA politics though... John Darley and Troy Bell have both left their respective parties to become independents! Both are in their own ways quite sensational. Though pardon me if I am sceptical about the 11pm media release timing of Bell, especially when he was charged a week ago. In slightly older news, MHS seems to be a reasonable chance, and i'd also be interested to know if the cashed-up McFetridge is a real chance or just being talked up. And this is a great read on a macro level. Timeshift (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for bothering you but I think Lyon sisters should be moved to a different title. Lyon is a common surname, there might be future female siblings surnamed Lyon who become notable and the girls are more famous for their disappearance/murders than in their own right. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is a very well presented 10-year-old article. As for what the article name should be, i'm not really sure or fussed. Timeshift (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Full results of the South Australian state election, 2014 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full results of the South Australian state election, 2014 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Frickeg (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm pinging you because I hope that you have some useful ideas, because I don't.
I know your most recent edit was made in good faith (OK, I don't know that, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't), but I think the current appearance of this page is atrocious. Before I jump in and make a half-arsed attempt to "improve" it, I thought that, as a minimum, it might be a good idea to solicit your opinions / advice / suggestions / whatever. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was out of my normal area enough as it was... I know of the Adelaide street/CBD articles and over the previous decade have only very occasionally viewed some of them. I like my Adelaide but it's not my wikipedia interest. I can understand why you might not like the article appearance but i'm not sure why 'atrocious' is warranted... but again it's not familiar wikipedia territory for me. If it were me i'd find the best and worst Adelaide CBD articles and reverse engineer an improvement, if there's no other way to approach it. Hope that helps? Timeshift (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if it helps, but it most certainly doesn't hinder! Thanks.
i'm not sure why 'atrocious' is warranted Well, I would have thought that 'atrocious' is very obviously an opinion. In the age of Trump, do opinions need warranting? (Sorry, that was a cheap shot ...
Take2: 'atrocious' is an opinion (i.e. my opinion.)
Thanks for your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. The Keating image is Crown Copyright; it was produced by the Australian Overseas Information Service (NAA: A6135, K15/9/89/29). The National Archives' copyright statement states it has "applied the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence". You've uploaded images under the same licence, that's how I learned about their licensing arrangements? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give http://www.naa.gov.au/copyright/index.aspx and http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs08.aspx more than a skim-read. You acknowledge yourself that the image is Crown Copyright. As the image is nowhere near 50 years old, it is still under copyright. And the CC-att-3.0-au licence applies to native naa.gov.au content - for their images, read below that - "Various copyright conditions apply to content in the National Archives collection, depending on the type of material and its age". As for your single counter-example, i'm not going to take the bait - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you are uploading images based on templating other examples without knowing how or why, then you need to take a step back. Until then, the 1989 Keating image is NOT ALLOWED. Any further attempts to defy this will be treated as vandalism. Furthermore, don't you think that if the image was valid and appropriately licensed that it would have already been found and used after so many editors and so many years, or did you honestly think you were the first to make the alleged discovery? Valid images are very hard to find... if wikipedia isn't using them by now then they are almost certainly not used for such a reason. We use a colour image of Keating from 2007 simply because no better valid image is available... you honestly think it's through lack of effort? /rant Timeshift (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry, but your interpretation is incorrect – the Creative Commons licence sits on top of the copyright, it doesn't abolish it. Almost none of the archive's content is "native" and is under some form of copyright, that's the whole point of it. The images you've uploaded are under the exact same circumstances. I can't understand why you're being so aggressive. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded dozens of images that no other Wikipedian has bothered to upload, including HQ portraits for just about every single Governor-General over the past couple weeks. I think you need to step back a bit and consider your behaviour. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are WRONG. Until you gain consensus (which you won't get as you are wrong) you are required to leave it as status quo, not what you're changing it to. So follow the rules, leave it alone, and if you want to see how wrong you are, post somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. While you're there, ask how wrong you are about GGs Zelman Cowen onward too. Considering you have only been on wikipedia for only three months, I fail to see how you believe you are sure you know more than a 11-year 65k-edit veteran. Again though, if you are so sure you are somehow correct, follow WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, leave the dispute alone as the status quo (wiki 101, honestly...) and ask at WP:AUP. Until then, any more attempts to subvert will result in disciplinary action. Timeshift (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're stalking my edits is a bit concerning. It seems like you're being deliberately disruptive at this point, and I think you should stop reverting for a while and maybe come back tomorrow with a cool head. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red herrings already? You must stop now or you will have disciplinary action taken against you. Honestly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Learn WP:BRD and the rest. If you don't now, you will when your account gets banned from wikipedia - after all, you can't say you haven't been repeatedly provided with the information demonstrating why your actions are wrong. Timeshift (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're so confident that I'm in the wrong, why not take your actions to neutral administrators rather than trying to tag your mates at whatever specialised discussion board? I am quite happy to do that, so I will open a thread at an appropriate discussion board. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always dealing with someone like you. And I never get involved with formal listings/reports/ANI/et al - I let other users do what needs to be done. Because, after all, after 11 years and 64k+ edits, I am now always right in these sorts of things and let it run its course. If I wasn't confident I'm right I wouldn't have got involved like I have. But I can't remember the last time I dealt with such an obtuse user. Timeshift (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wayne Dropulich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Dropulich until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cjhard (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing some research on Wikipedia and your name kept popping up in article history making the same biased and malicious edits, going back several years. And also mysterious anonymous editors making the exact same changes …. Hmm, what a funny coincidence. I see that thankfully most of your work has already been undone, but rest assured that I will be monitoring you to make sure the same doesn’t happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesandjo (talk • contribs) 12:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre straw-man coat-rack comment you present! Here are the facts: 95% of my 64,473 contributions over 11 and a half years have been non-controversial article creations and expansions, and 99% of my contributions are appreciated and not reverted (which, unlike contested/controversial contributions, rarely attract talk page comments - and I archive my talk page far less often than most as I have nothing to hide or be concerned about)... and I take both registered editor and anonymous IP editor reversions of any reverted contributions of mine as another sign that, as a rule, my contributions meet standards, are justified, and warranted. In 11 years, i've been of assistance in countless successful sockpuppetry investigations, and in that time, not a single veteran user or administrator has ever created a sockpuppetry investigation of me or even informally accused me. My contributions, particularly of historical Australian federal and state political articles and biographical photos going back up to 180 years in the past, single-handedly make up the vast majority of all federal and SA state election/major party leader/PM and SA Premier article and image content. Furthermore, a large majority of my 64,473 contributions have historically had a substantial (often bold/500+) green positive character count, more than most wikipedia editors I come across, whose contributions are dominated by unsubstantial green positive/black/red negative character counts, often never making any substantial contributions and only nitpicking others, or even worse, those who are purist deletionists or proceduralists who seem to have no interest in making any substantial contributions of their own. Your comment rings extremely hollow, particularly as you mention no grevience in particular, and furthermore, inexplicably tacked it on to a section on a Wayne Dropulich AfD, of which I made two non-controversial/non-challenged edits, one was the actual creation of the article with a +2,344 green character count - well done, you unwittingly contradicted yourself via Dropulich. Here's the kicker though: a) your comment sounds remarkably similar to a comment I made to an intransigent editor in the recent past, which in that case was very justified - so your potential for sockpuppetry here is credible, which gives rise to the rationale of your baseless accusation. I'd label your attempts as the average run-of-the-mill 'sockpuppetry 101 tactics' but your complete lack of crafting any claim detail is an embarrassment to the term sockpuppet and its instances/users/investigations. b) Your eight contributions, all performed on 14 Nov 2017 and nothing since, lack any demonstration of corrections of my contributions... very odd for someone who claims to have a great generic systemic concern of my contributions. Regardless, your contribution history (pattern, changes, single date, new account, this non-specific accusation) is the most cliche red-flag a troublesome sockpuppet user can display. Ultimately, such a troublesome generic-accuser user with comprehensive lack of substance or credibility, attempting (word used loosely) to try it on with a 64,473-contribution 11.5-year Master Editor III veteran user, is universally instantly dismissed and universally instantly and forevermore trashes your reputation (such as it is). Normally I wouldn't reply with this level of detail, but such a red-flag of all-time red-flag failures called for nothing less than a fun bit of methodical destruction of the non-accusation. So, should I suspect you might try to have a go at some mischief-making above a truly comprehensive fail, or are you anything but a slow learner and now realise just how overwhelmingly out of your depth you were? Next! Timeshift (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Timeshift9. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Timeshift9. AfC submissions Random submission ~8 weeks 1,823 pending submissions Purge to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In this edit you wrote "Seats listed are those which equivalently polled above the state average".
I don't understand what "equivalently polled above the state average" means. Equivalent to what? State average for what?
Could you clarify the sentence please? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with wording improvements and freely admit the sentence could be improved. But surely you do understand what is being conveyed don't you? Particularly after reading the section reference? If you have read it but remain genuinely confused, let me know. I have made some overall section improvements though which did include some re-wording, not sure if/how it changes your concern. Timeshift (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But surely you do understand what is was being conveyed don't you? - To be honest, no, I didn't. On-the-other-hand, I find "The 15 state seats listed right are those which equivalently polled above the overall 21.7% NXT Senate vote across South Australia at the 2016 federal election" much more comprehendable. However, I still don't like your use of the word "equivalently" — the word is not used in the source, and you don't define what you mean by it. To be fair, I acknowledge that the source doesn't explain how it extrapolated from the 2016 Senate result to the State seats. Do you know how they extrapolated? Also, I wonder why they extrapolated from the Senate results rather than the House of Representatives results? Pdfpdf (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, their table header says "Strongest Nick Xenophon Team seats by 2016 Senate vote", whereas you write "those which equivalently polled above the overall 21.7%". Why do you say that? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Michael Keenan (South Australian politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable - mayor of a small local government area and unsuccessful candidate for higher office. No coverage beyond would you would expect.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electoral_district_of_Adelaide&curid=3673541&diff=832452379&oldid=832435379 where you removed the section about Walkerville (suburb) being redistributed from Adelaide (electoral district). Whilst the section is lengthy, it's well referenced and I think has a continuing place in Wikipedia. Can I ask you to reinstate it? (I could just revert it but you seem keen :) Alex Sims (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - firstly (and not that it matters all that much, but) did you know I was actually the one who created and added the paragraph in question? Anywho... it is too specific and is in the past now to take up such volume in the article. Are you aware it is all still at Rachel Sanderson where due to her actions it holds much more relevance? Also, when you say "Walkerville (suburb) being redistributed from Adelaide (electoral district)", it comes across as a statement... you are aware that Walkerville ended up untouched and unredistributed in the 2016 redistribution, don't you? Timeshift (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't know you did it, it was a nice paragraph. I didn't know it was in the Rachel Sanderson article. I might add a sentence pointing to that section from the Adelaide electoral district article. I was aware that it was left untouched, but if not for the actions of the 130(?not sure of number, but it was a lot) respondents it would have ended up in another seat. It seems now, decisive in the result for Adelaide in the 2018 State election, but thats my own synthesis, I will keep an eye out for a reliable source commenting about the two. Anyway thanks for replying and keep up the good work. Alex Sims (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Liberals only picked up: three of the four Labor seats redistributed to them as well as the new vacant ultra-marginal seat of King, all of which (apart from Elder and King) came about via the revision between the draft and final release. Sure, on the draft redistribution, Adelaide would indeed have been won by Labor if Sanderson didn't do what was until then unprecedented (and yes, 130 respondents from her pro-forma template is by far the state record), but the draft is the draft and the final is the final. To state that Sanderson's and Walkerville's actions are what got her across the line might be true, but as you observe, it is easily challenged on synth grounds, particularly with no reliable source confirming it. It seems reasonably clear that you are in the Adelaide electorate (as am I), so perhaps it seems a bigger deal than it really is? A redistribution is only a redistribution upon the final release. Anything before that is just speculation and theory. Having said all that, in theory I wouldn't object to the properly-worded addition of a sentence pointing to the Sanderson section. Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:BillyHughes.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

lower resolution version of c:File:BillyHughes.png

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ghouston (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if you take a look at the submissions, you would indeed know that over 100 of the record 130 submissions were about this.

First, it was me who wrote "over 100" - [2]. As this was uncited, and I thought counting them would be WP:OR, I changed it to say "numerous". Yes, I did look at the submissions. No I don't know that over 100 of them are about this.

Do you know that over 100 of them are about this? How? How do you say it without it being WP:OR? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Counting the related submissions is not OR in itself. Second, it wasn't you who wrote ~100 of 130 submissions, it was me, at the time, in mid 2016. And yes, I read through all the submissions before I made that edit, so yes, i do know. Timeshift (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, I did write it. It's just that you also wrote it, and you wrote it well before I did. Do you know why yours was removed? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I think your latest version is an improvement. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we both thought it was noteworthy, however I added it long before you did (and when you added it on 1 April 2018, it was probably you involuntarily remembering either a) reading my long-standing contribution at Rachel Sanderson and/or b) reading it in the electorate article on/before I removed it on 26 March 2018). As for why it was removed, I removed the whole thing after the election had passed, as I thought the huge paragraph block was no longer so worthy that it was warranted in this article too, so I removed it in favour of just leaving it in the Rachel Sanderson article. However, as per User:Alex Sims querying with me, it was mutually decided that a shortened version might be warranted. The more I saw of the shortened version, the more I thought little bits here and there were important to re-add. Even now, it reads with a far more suitable brevity than it did. And i'm not quite sure which wording i've just changed for you to say that it's an improvement...? If anything it has simply been expanded a little further. Timeshift (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From my POV, it not so much that you've changed it, as that in this latest edit step you've expanded it, and this fills in some gaps and better explains things, which is why I think it's an improvement. (Bedtime.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never before been thanked for achiving my talk page ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually for your new "Can someone update the articles?" link :) Timeshift (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division) logo 2016.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:John Kerr.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, subsequently. First of all, you're assuming bad faith, I ask you not. They all technically resigned on the 10th, but Sharkie's only was effective from the 11th. Hammond asked for the resignation shortly after the dual citizens did and was effective the same day. I don't have a particular attachment to the word subsequently though. I'm happy with meanwhile, at the same time, et cetera. Regards, Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But whatever the word is, it doesn't *add* anything. It is obvious in the next sentence that all 5 by-elections follow a common timeline of events. Please, avoid superfluity, acronyms, and the longer sentences superfluity creates. Brevity is king. Lastly, please don't throw around clearly baseless bad faith accusations, it serves neither of us. Timeshift (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not baseless, "why use incorrect superfluous words that don't add anything?", accusing me of purposefully using incorrect and superfluous words. It is not bad faith simply to disagree with me. The reason I used one word to describe this was to enhance brevity, as using more words would decrease the brevity. If the backgrounds for these by-elections are going to relate to the Perth by-election, they ought to explain that the Perth by-election has been caused for a different reason than the others, which is what I have conveyed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The different cause is already conveyed clearly, without the use of a superfluous word. And nowhere have I said that you are purposefully being incorrect... please don't put words in my mouth and label it bad faith. Timeshift (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me why I was doing something incorrectly, not asking me why I was doing something. All I ask is that you not do that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can do something incorrectly without purposely being incorrect, it's not a contradiction. It's a bit late to say "all I ask is that you not do that" when right at the start you make (false) bad faith accusations. Such accusations are significant and should not be made lightly. Timeshift (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was significant and I have not made it lightly at all. You didn't ask me why I did X, you asked me why I did something incorrectly. It's not late at all to say that I'm simply asking you don't do that, it was the first thing I said to you. I haven't said anything else on the matter and that's still all I have asked, I don't feel the need to take it further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

eye roll Timeshift (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to critique talkpage entry “Re Barrow” at Talk:2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis. DCBarrow (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pass... slamming my fingers in a car door repeatedly would be more productive. Timeshift (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DCBarrow: "removing Timeshift9 comments which misunderstand Part XIV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918"? So you think that if a user's comments "misunderstand" an Electoral Act, then that is a justified reason to remove their wikipedia comments? And then "Notwithstanding WP:IAR If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it"? So you think that keeping your self-aggrandising comments on article talk pages, of which is completely off-topic and irrelevant to the article, improves wikipedia and is a case of WP:IAR? Wow... I hope it is in jest, because just one of those, let alone both, are near the top of the most baffling and bizarre claims i've seen in my 10+ years on here. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so bizarre! Trying to set a new benchmark of electoral fringe cruft? Perhaps if your life wasn't so consumed with battling[3][4] Antony Green, Andrew Bolt (i'd say that one could actually start to understand Bolt's broken Tonka toy mentality, but that is giving you too much credit), wikipedia users - and anything that draws a shadow - you might be able to achieve the electoral relevance that you purport to desire. Timeshift (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I may disagree with User:Timeshift9 on one thing, it is that this is both bizarre AND hilarious. I can only wait in anticipation for what happens next, but obviously the talk page entries of other people on talk pages other than your own can't be deleted merely because you disagree with them or even if they are saying something wrong. In light of that, deleting comments on your own talk page is probably not the best idea, but that's your right. It's still in history though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He Georgina Downer'd me off his user talk page! She and he have more in common than they realise :) Timeshift (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See LINK DCBarrow (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious outcome and hilarious result. Timeshift (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it isn't neutral to suggest that the Liberals are freely choosing not to contest them, it's their spin that they are "concentrating" resources on the Darling Range by-election, whether that's right or not. Other observers, particularly their opposition of course, have a different view. Therefore a neutral take is needed, simply saying they are not contesting X and Y but have contested Z, if it's even necessary to say so at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand... a party is free to choose whether or not the contest a by-election. The WA Liberals chose not to contest Perth and Fremantle. Therefore, by definition, they are/were concentrating party and financial resources on the Darling Range by-election where they fielded a candidate - even if Cormann chose to use those words. Using your sentence, it doesn't indicate at all why contesting Z might mean X and Y aren't contested. By saying X and Y aren't being contested due to Z (X and Y might have been contested without the Z factor), it helps the reader to understand why. Timeshift (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually disagreement between the state and federal organisations, particularly for Perth. Saying it was about resources gives the impression that they did not contest the federal by-elections because of resource reasons, which is the Liberal Party talking point. We don't have to explain all the reasons why they may not have contested the by-elections, but that doesn't mean we should use the reason that is biased for the Liberals. It's not true that they would have contested the by-elections in Perth and Fremantle if not for the Darling Range by-election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But by not contesting a by-election in favour of another, it is inherent that resources will indeed be concentrated on the contested by-election. Timeshift (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that, but they didn't decide to contest the Darling Range by-election instead of the others, neither did they decide not to contest Perth and Fremantle in order to concentrate resources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:FrankWalsh.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the question mark on the top right corner of the results tables on the AEC tally room pages (e.g. Braddon), it says "These results are final." for Braddon, Longman, Fremantle and Perth, but not Mayo. --Canley (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll leave it to you to determine the finality of Mayo. What I do is detect when the flag in the media feed switches to "Final Results" and output the table—that hasn't been an issue for any other (federal) by-election. I guess Mayo is a pretty new situation... when was the last two-candidate count with Labor and Liberals running? Wills in 1992? Before digital results anyway, so I have no precedent for this not correctly indicating that the results are actually final or the timeframe for a 2PP count... that said, if you look at some of the 2016 Senate results and all the House results, the AEC did make some sneaky updates in mid-2017 (usually to the enrolment figures they announce when the rolls close). I'm interested to know if they will ever actually "complete" the two-party preferred count and when! Anyway, I'll keep an eye on the media feed and let you know if anything changes. Hope you are enjoying the shenanigans in Canberra! --Canley (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put in something, but I am a bit exhausted by the debate on that page. I care, but the infobox really is not that big a deal. Frickeg (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can pick our battles. If a generally useless but mostly harmless infobox has to malinger on that page, it's ultimately not the end of the world. Frickeg (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much the position I'm taking now. That a couple of hard-nosed editors are so determined to squeeze that ill-fitting template around this unusual by-election amazes me, but my sanity monitor tells me to let them be for now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I don't understand the unusual activity there either... the intensity is what had kept me from participating in the talkpage discussion (until the past 24 hours...). Timeshift (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

@Timeshift9:. I'm not going to continue to edit war with you because I'd rather not risk a ban myself. Congratulations, your stubborn pursuit means that at least for a while, the Wentworth by-election page will go unedited from me. I feel I've done all I can to stand up for a basic, common-sense position. There's a RFC and ANI open now, so hopefully some others come along and if I, Impru20 and Onetwothreeip can't entice you to rationally step back from beating the dead horse, maybe someone else will. Global-Cityzen (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Timeshift9 has had the same thoughts as i have about that gang of "three", with seemingly absolutely identical thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have, but i've got no detective experience in the area you refer to. Timeshift (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very vaguely familiar, but I don't recall this happening in the infoboxes for the last couple of (federal or state) elections. It could be one of those experiments where I or someone else did a mockup on a talk page or sandbox, but never really followed through with it? I'll let you know if I find anything... --Canley (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking at the old Tally Room page. When the results are finalised, AEC switches from the Virtual Tally Room to a Results page https://results.aec.gov.au/22844/Website/HouseDivisionPage-22844-152.htm which says the results are final. The Results page is now linked from the AEC home page. --Canley (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that explains it! In future it might be best to, within the same edit, update the AEC results ref being used in the by-election article to the new one, so nobody is confused :) Timeshift (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I forgot to change the ref link, thanks for doing that. --Canley (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's missing. I believe I started the results lists for King and Black during the SA election, and Gibson a month ago, but not that one. --Canley (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narungga is also missing by the way. --Canley (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, leave it with me, I'll do them this week. --Canley (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've undone your edits on the upper house. The ABC computer is calling things off an incomplete, unrepresentative count, as Kevin Bonham makes clear here. Sorry if I caught some legitimate edits in there but I already had to undo all of this stuff twice. Frickeg (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I wasn't too brusque this morning - I was literally halfway out the door to work. I said a lot more on the article talk, but I really do appreciate your efforts to compromise here, even though I'm afraid I'm fairly immovable on the key point of having those numbers in the results table because it is actively misleading. Just because the ABC is choosing to be misleading doesn't mean we have to! Frickeg (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm afraid I'm fairly immovable on the key point of having those numbers in the results table because it is actively misleading. Just because the ABC is choosing to be misleading doesn't mean we have to!" ... Are you seriously accusing the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Antony Green of being intentionally misleading in the area of domestic parliamentary elections? Timeshift (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally misleading? Perhaps not. Deliberately careless and opaque? Definitely. It is outrageous that they are depicting seats as won off an unrepresentative count - I presume that Antony was not anticipating the odd way the NSWEC is conducting this election, but that's no excuse for not adding a note of caution at the top of the table. Frickeg (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that the ABC "is choosing to be misleading" is the same as "intentionally misleading". And "deliberate carelessness" is not really any different when taken in the same context. Anywho - if you view it as black and white as "depicting seats as won" then you are making a choice to apply an extremely narrow interpretation. Did you also apply the same "ABC choosing to be misleading" and "depicting seats as won" interpretation and opinion of the regularly updated changing Senate seat projections by the ABC in the weeks following the 2016 election (and others)? Timeshift (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because those projections were based off a lot more than 10% of the count a lot more quickly than these ones, and we didn't use them until they were. We also never included the projections in our articles - we only included the seats won off actual quotas until the final distribution took place. Frickeg (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And also, I was saying the whole "choosing to be misleading" thing in a friendly/semi-jocular way, as I would have thought was obvious. I am allowed to personally have a view that the ABC is doing a shitty job of reporting these figures, I presume. Frickeg (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - see evidence (which, by the way, is an URL generated by an edit of yours several days after the 2016 election :). The ABC election computer Senate seat projections were indeed included following the 2016 fed election (and others). As for the % figure of a count used for projections, your objection is arbitrary and subjective. What is enough? What isn't? If the ABC has seat projections then so do we, as we always do, and continually update the article with updated counts and projections for the relatively short time following the election. A projection is a projection. Do you also think we should also be considering rejecting sets of opinion polling figures that you might arbitrarily and subjectively argue has a sample size too small? And what figure would that be? Are we done yet? Please. Timeshift (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing to no longer be impartial of a universally recognised WP:RS like the ABC and Antony Green is never a good idea, regardless of how it was meant, because potential future interpretations by potential future users can unfortunately come back to bite. Timeshift (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now. Those are lower house figures (although I gotta say, even there it's pretty irresponsible and I definitely don't think that's been our usual practice). I've provided some counter-examples on the talk page (NSW ones too, since for the umpteenth time, this is different from the Senate or most state upper houses), but honestly, even if this were undisputed practice, it would still be stupid and wrong, and I would still argue against it. And I have to assume your last comment there is satire, because for god's sake, coming from you that's pretty rich (and I say this as someone who has actively defended you on that front before). Frickeg (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided created from an article change of yours was simply to show that you had seen the 2016 election article a week later. The evidence I refer to is the Senate seat projections used in the Senate results tables further down the article. I'm done here. Timeshift (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the table where the "seats" column is left blank, or the state one where seats in doubt are very clearly determined (0-1, etc.)? Both of which are basically exactly what I am arguing for? Frickeg (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you have changed your mind in a few ways and now agree that the ABC election computer upper house seat projections a) are a valid info/data source, b) are in fact used in the 2016 fed election article, and c) should continue to be used in the 2019 NSW election article? Well, that is certainly a big movement on your part! Huzzah! This discussion has been needlessly long, involved and very time-consuming - i'm a little grumpy at how (and why) this was so protracted and I have a headache. I'm signing off for a while - thank you for your change of heart. Timeshift (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't changed my mind? I have been arguing for the upper-house seats to be left blank (or at least the clearly in-doubt ones to be removed) from the beginning, which is exactly what is happening in your link and is not what is happening on the NSW page right now. Clearly we're both a bit grumpy and could use some time off - I've put some requests for more input at WP:AWNB and WT:AUP so that hopefully someone else can cut through. Hope your weekend is less stressful than this has been! Frickeg (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of political controversies in Australia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political controversies in Australia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mqst north (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:ThomasPlayfordIV.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:ChrisWatson.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:EdmundBarton.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Australian Labor Party Youth Logo 2016.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Australian Legislative Council has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian Senators/adv has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian Senators/ind has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leaders of the Protectionist Party has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leaders of the Commonwealth Liberal Party has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leaders of the Free Trade Party has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leaders of the Liberal Federation (SA) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leaders of the Liberal Union (SA) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:McEwen1930s.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused. Low quality. Superseded by File:John McEwen 1930s.jpg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division) logo 2016.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JosephCook4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Felix QW (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fisher has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]