Hi just wanted to say hi since you are quite a prolific political wikipedian - I am looking to improve the LPA article with more sources and information about preselection, factions and other aspects of the internal party - I have never really undertaken editing a page as large as this- as I am a fairly new user. Any advice?Bluemorning32 (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"That's some really fascinating stuff there Martin0001! *giggle* Timeshift (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)"

If you were being sarcastic, then you just don't see my experiment buddy. I wanted to see what would happen if I whipped out that comment on Piers Akerman's wiki. I had to try a second time before Ratel rephrased it.

So, I decided to see what would happen if I put that little statement onto a few other people's pages, seeing as it's apparently compulsory material. Exactly the same issue, just in a different direction, and now I'm POV pushing. I wonder how Ratel will respond when I claim he's POV pushing by keeping it in Akerman's wiki.

Martin0001 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Euryalus (talk) has cleared this issue up. Martin0001 (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As I posted to Euryalus, and obviously should have posted to you: “Thanks for clarify, you really cleared things up. I understand the experimental thing now, and recognize it's off limits. Let's see if someone reverts it shall we?” So, please call off your tirade of heat seeking and carefully placed capital letters. You may have noticed that I have contributed to the PA talk in congruence with Wikipedia policy, and don’t need any more admonishment.

RE “That is not how we do things on wikipedia.” I assume this is referring to experimentation and not the use of the so-called “silly prefix”? The comment I tried to remove would fit into your criteria, and not only was it there for five months, but I seriously doubt three people ganged up on whoever put it in. Don’t forget that more experienced users protected and encouraged the original “silly prefix”, apparently free from critical appraisal until now. I would think this to be a far more worthy target of counsel. Martin0001 (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that title brohan. I was just totally fricken lost! Seriously though, you've got some ubermicro attention to detail going on. Respect.Martin0001 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

lol Timeshift (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on my talk page - essentially, in my eyes evidence of "good will" on your behalf would be to at least show the courtesy of providing reasoning for your "disagreement" and your immediate revert. --Merbabu (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Now responded to your comment today. Essentially suggesting chill pills all round. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just a pity there are users out there that deceive through heading changes and selective commment removal - which you agree with. Oh well. The history is there, it only shows his poor form for what it is. Timeshift (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well kind of, but my response was trying to be a bit more conciliatory and emphasized that the environment we are all operating in is again a bit poisonous (not many can say they didn't contribute to that). While not condoning anyone, I'm not condemning either. I think everyone feels provoked to some extent. Hence the chill pills *all round* recommendations. --Merbabu (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift, you may have misunderstood me here. I said at Talk:John Howard with respect to the Obama quote (only) not to interpret my silence as consensus. In general, of course, silence equals consensus. I am not naive enough to expect that just because no-one replied to my "reckless spending quote" text I had authority to make the proposed changes to the article, which is why I asked people to speak up. --Surturz (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:FLR:
In a nutshell, if the extension were to be installed, it could mean that when edits are made to certain articles, those edits might not be immediately visible to readers, until they have been "sighted" by someone trustworthy. This would allow a given revision to be "flagged" as providing a clean version of the article that did not include vandalism or other problems.

The reason why I have threatned to retire is because I'm against restricting WP anymore, and I believe that WP:RCP is good enough. Guy0307 (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's what it is? Well I agree with you, it's not in the spirit of wikipedia, and shouldn't be introduced. That said, it sounds like a good idea for fully protected pages, though it could be abused unless the approver had to have been on wikipedia for x amount of months with x amount of edits. Timeshift (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep - for Australian boxes you have to use "Template:Australian politics/name/SA Greens" and "Template:Australian politics/party colours/SA Greens" rather than the "meta/color" versions. It's to do with the Australian coding, which means that we can write simply "Labor" in the coding rather than "Australian Labor Party". The colours templates also need to begin with bgcolor= (my italics), i.e. bgcolor=yellowgreen. I've fixed the Greens up; their code is "SA Greens". Just do the same for the Nationals and it should work fine. Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:JackofOz has his environment set up to have redirects appear as green links rather than blue links, but he can't remember how he did it. He has said: "I heard about them via a general announcement on the talk page of your Adelaide colleague User:Timeshift9." Can you point me at something that will tell me about them, and how to turn them on? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the first i've heard of it! I've never seen a green link on wikipedia AFAIK! Timeshift (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. That's a shame. Sorry to bother you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord! Is it possible I've had a completely unprecedented memory failure, Timeshift? I suppose it had to happen eventually. Sorry if I misattributed you, but I was sure it was on your talk page that I saw a post telling all and sundry about green links and how to turn them on. It required some special command that I've totally forgotten, then you had to restart your computer to get it going. It worked brilliantly first time, and I've used green links ever since to spot literally thousands of bad redirects piped links. It's the best tool. This would have been roughly 12-18 months ago.

I'll see if I can track down where I read about it, and let you know. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I did a search on "green links" and got a lot of irrelevant results (some of which were rather interesting!) An hour later I got to the very last one, which seemed it might be useful. This was the end result. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Timeshift, what's new? I haven't been editing in any systematic way in some time. Why the change on the PM boxes issue? They never used to be that way. Slac speak up! 05:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a dicussion somewhere a few months ago about it... maybe one of the template talk? I'll look when I get some more time. Timeshift (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Still notable? Frickeg (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing not many people have been that stupid, but I remember people talking about it when Jamie Briggs declared victory a little earlier than was perhaps proper in the 2008 Mayo by-election. What is it with these South Australian Libs and jumping the gun? Perhaps we should redirect Boylan to the Frome by-election article, or should he be straight deleted? Frickeg (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Righto. Frickeg (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit embarassing for you to have to nominate your own article for deletion. Still, not as embarassing as it was for Martin H-S! :) Peter Ballard (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead of continuing reverting a page without a good reason, maybe use this? I changed it because the other image is of very poor quality. - Mike Beckham (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting the Rudd photo. It's better to use the official photo like the Obama page does, it is the fairest way to represent Rudd. I agree with Mike the current photo is very poor (just another reason the official one should be used.) If you took the photo and are reverting it so your work is on the Rudd page then grow up. - - Byron

Do you have any concept of image licensing? It appears not. Obama's official photo is copyright free. Rudd's official photo is not. It may have fair-use provisions, but wikipedia does not allow that. The official photo can not and will not be used. And no I didn't take the current photo. Timeshift (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like these two above aren't aware of the long discussion and polling that resulted in the current photo, and likewise didn't check the source info, which points to someone called "Dick Manson". Unless, of course, statue.

Were there any good images from the G-20 meeting, taken by official US government sources? We could use one of them, maybe crop to remove grim-faced GWB. Current pic isn't that bad, considering the difficulty we have in getting pix of Oz celebrities. --Pete (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Timeshift (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of license restrictions, you reverted my edit which changed the photo to another one already on the page which was of better quality. - Mike Beckham (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

With what consensus? See above, we had the discussion on this a while ago, we are keeping what we currently have. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you insist I'd be happy to open a new discussion about it up. Ta. - Mike Beckham (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Timeshift (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed this user? I know you love users like this... --Surturz (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[1] Not perfect, but a small but notable improvement. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, it's better. (and a bit of time often makes things clearer). and thanks for the economic update. regards --Merbabu (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Certain trolls"? Prester John's long gone (and thank god he didn't turn out to be another David York). ;-) (although, he was very good at weeding out left wing bias - shame about the right wing bias he missed though).--Merbabu (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah. I have a lot of time on my hands at the moment (at least for the next couple of weeks), and I've been enjoying reading articles (especially Frickeg's massive output lately) and correcting a few things here and there. For most purposes though, I'm still retired, and as soon as I've got another job in my new city, I'll probably be back to not being around too much. Rebecca (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I ran into huge problems in attempting to work out what happened with the epic split in the Labor Party in response to the Premier's Plan to deal with the Depression in the 1930s. The governing Labor caucus completely exploded over the issue, and split into at times up to four factions. I was able to work out what happened after the 1933 election (when there were four factions of Labor MPs in the parliament), but I couldn't find sources to clearly back up who went where in the carnage that went before the election, considering that most of the incumbent Labor members lost their seats. Orderinchaos and I went through everything we had, and we still had at least six or seven people that we had absolutely no clue about, and a few others that were just guesswork. If you've got any sources that could explain that one, let me know - I'm still really interested and I'd gladly fix it up if I could. That's the only reason I stopped at 1930-33.

What've you been finding on the by-elections? Like I said above, I've got quite a bit of time on my hands at the moment, and might be up for running into the State Library to help out some. The political nerd in me still finds this more interesting than sitting around watching my housemate's L Word DVDs, as much as I'm tired of Wikipedia drama. Rebecca (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Could, but would just be a bit complicated. Unfortunately, I just realised that I lost all my Dean Jaensch election records when my external hard drive crashed last week. Crap. And considering I'm no longer in Canberra I don't like the odds of being able to get my hands on them again anytime soon. Rebecca (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Insanely busy atm (will be offline for next 2 days) but could you please keep an eye on the IP I reverted at Nicola Roxon and Barnaby Joyce? Not sure what's going on there. Orderinchaos 09:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No personal vendetta Timeshift9, just a healthy distrust and dislike of the guy. Dcfc adelaide (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you and personally don't have a problem with reputable opinion pieces being used as a source of commentary for articles. I don't actually have any issue with the text you added either. However, OrderInChaos has stated very strongly that opinion pieces cannot be used as refs. I urge you to take it up with him/her, I'll support you. --Surturz (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence, so that it states it as being opinion/commentary (to comply with the rules), but Surturz has reverted it a second time without explanation.--Lester 00:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On opinion pieces generally, while their use can clearly bring us to dodgy ground, there is no hard and fast rule to say that we can't use opinion pieces. It's *how* and *what part* we use. Ie, we can say that Keating said "The Recession we Had to Have" - there's no argument over that as a fact even if we use an opinion piece as the ref. The problem comes when we preface it by transferring opinion on that fact into the article - eg, by labelling Keating's comment as "notorious" (even if notorious is referenced to a source). It's not a question of RS but POV/bias. While we may not agree with the opinions in opinion pieces, and agree they shouldn't be used, it is another thing to say that the facts themselves in the pieces are not to be used either. Ie, we should be more focussed on just not representing the opinion in a source as fact in WP. (Having said all that, yes, if a fact also appears in a non-opinion piece, then it is probably better to use that rather than the opinion piece). But when does a source become an opinion piece? Better just to distinguish between fact and opinion in any source. --Merbabu (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It the PM elected or designated in Australia to clarify in reverting my edits to the Australia 2007 election page. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you offer your thoughts on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I thought if anyone here would know this, you would. I'm currently trying to create an article on Walter Griffiths, the member for the Northern Territory from 1893-1900. He was first elected aged 25 and I was wondering if he is the youngest ever member of the SA parliament? --Roisterer (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No probs. I was hoping to dodge the research work required to find if he was the youngest. He died aged 33, which would have to make him close to the shortest lived SA MPs as well. --Roisterer (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Have left a welcome there - thought just a spray from you might not be enough :) - at least the stuff is spelt out - for her that is - nice to see youre as abrasive as ever :) SatuSuro 09:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Heheheh invoking the great Adam (May he rest wherever he is in pieces or peace or whatever) - at least I got no short change from my interactions from him when he went to Java - he even re-invoked the perennial headache of Suharto/Soeharto spelling bless his socks

Hey we get nutters, they come and they go, and nutters like us stay around - its all swings and roundabouts and jimbo in the end :( SatuSuro 12:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ta for that - oh well i think i have insulted enough people today :) SatuSuro 13:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Re this revert: [2] - please can you provide a <ref> for the "This quickly escalated into one of the largest search operations in Australian history" statement? - thanks in anticipation. 210.4.103.246 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr 246 is correct. If a fact is challenged then it does need a citation. The fact in question is a bold assertion of fact and does need a citation now that it has been challenged. Chillum 15:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref added. He's a PM, one of the biggest is an obvious, not a point of contention. Now go away both of you. Timeshift (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the <ref>, much appreciated. Sorry for the aggravation - I came to your talk page rather than unrevert to try and avoid that. I didn't think it was necessarily contentious, but wanted to use the same <ref> elsewhere. Thanks again, anyway. 210.4.103.246 (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding me. You didn't even think it was contentious, but because you couldn't be arsed doing your own research (which took me five seconds in google), you fact tagged a wikipedia sentence in the hopes someone else would do your footwork for a non-contentious statement? Honestly, some people... Timeshift (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

When I said "[not] necessarily contentious" I meant that I didn't think it was implausible - but I did wonder about how big the overall scale could be, given the location, and I did think it needed a <ref>. If none had been forthcoming, I'd probably have come back to it at some point in the future. Again, sorry for the aggravation. 210.4.103.246 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The thorn in my side here is that you only added the cite tag because you wanted someone else to do your research on something unrelated. Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're mistaken. But never mind. 210.4.103.246 (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Vanstone&diff=274025323&oldid=265685661 - you may be interested in this - not for the biting of newbies but whether it is OR or whether it is citeable - cheers SatuSuro 03:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

also I would be interested if you had a ref for my edit (heheh asking here yes) on the Counterpoint (ABC program) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpoint_(Radio_National) art (or diff of opinion for that matter) in the first para re howards amorous attention towards auntyie  :) SatuSuro 03:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Youre lucky id let you swear on my talk page - but many I'd revert on sight ;) SatuSuro 08:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever mate, your persistent changing of my edits (legitmate, sourced edits) are juvenile and most certainly not in the spirit of Wiki. I hope for your sake you find something better to do with your time, timeshift9. Good day sir. Dcfc adelaide (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh. This is becoming tedious. You are a hack. Dcfc adelaide (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift. Do you think there would be an easy source for an image of Sonia McMahon? Don't want to cause you extra work, but I thought you're pretty good with knowing where images can be sourced. Thanks, Lester 04:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I just found a photo on Flickr, which says "no known copyright restrictions". Am I OK to put that into the article?--Lester 04:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Timeshift. I put the image into the article. Hopefully I entered the copyright info correctly. Cheers,Lester 04:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This photo would have been a great one to use. It's probably her most famous photo, as the dress caused a scandal. However, Corbis seems to be claiming copyright for it, so I won't put it in.--Lester 23:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like I was wrong, and it was so long ago I'm not sure why I put 1993. He resigned from Parliament on 11 February 1994 (source: AEC). --Canley (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jones in the Fast Lane, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

A search for references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. This has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:

Jones in the Fast Lane – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rogerb67 (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jones in the Fast Lane, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones in the Fast Lane. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rogerb67 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[3] → That comment (nor was the one by the IP) really necessary to make. No one is out to get you or anything. The AFD is going to pan out, and it looks like it will be kept. Jumping up and down and shouting doesn't help any. Relax a little. MuZemike 20:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

'Hear hear!!' is a hearty agreeance. Nothing more. Perhaps it is you who should settle down and relax a little. Timeshift (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah, it was a typo. Should have been 34% for the Lib (which adds to 100.1%, but that will be because of rounding errors). Frickeg (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Division of Wide Bay - which ones are causing problems? I can't see it. Frickeg (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep! [4] It's because of the redistribution - that 20% comes from the Liberals, who hold neighbouring (I think) McPherson, which transferred a lot of its territory to Wide Bay. Hence the 20% (you'll see there's a 20% swing away from the non-contesting Libs, so it amounts to about a 0% swing to the Coalition). Frickeg (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you check out WP:MOS before reverting valid edits. Let me quote:

• In biographical infobox templates, provide age calculation with {{birth-date and age}} for living people and {{death-date and age}} for the deceased when the full birth or death date, respectively, is known.--Pete (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, they need to be classified as something. I was suggesting that as a Wikipedia convention we adopt the view that Independents succeeding other Independents are "Independent hold" rather than "Independent gain from Independent" (the other option). The closest I can find to supporting this view is Antony Green here, where he compares Peter Besseling's vote to Rob Oakeshott's. I'm not aware of definitive support for either of them. Frickeg (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not finished yet! But thanks - they've been bugging me for a while. Frickeg (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

appreciate it if you actually checked the context before jumping into discussions and taking sides. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a hard drive crash a couple of months ago, and in the process I lost the sources I used to do most of the work I did on SA politics - Dean Jaensch's great collection of SA election results. I originally got it from the National Library - it's all on a CD, and just copied the PDF files onto my laptop. Unfortunately I'm no longer in Canberra, and no library over here has a copy. There's a copy at the SA State Library, and Flinders and Adelaide uni libraries have a copy of the CD too - is there any chance you could track one down for me? I'd love to get my hands on that data again. Rebecca (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just copied the actual PDF files off the CD and on to my hard drive; if you did that, you could email me them - otherwise if you burned the CD I'd gladly take a hard copy. It's an invaluable resource, that's for sure - it's got every general and by-election result since the first Legislative Council, I do believe. Rebecca (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I am slowly going through all the election templates and changing them to a Navbox format; so far all the countries in Europe, Asia and Oceania have been done. This followed a discussion on the Irish elections template at which it was decided that this format was better for a variety of reasons. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Irish elections and User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 015#Election template. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: your Julie Bishop pic has been used without attribution on a WA blog: http://westernpatriot.com.au/?p=563 regards, Davidcohen (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay

Hi - i've removed the bit from the lead which says "though some say first (Premier)" as the clear consensus is that he is the third, not the first. The reference doesn't help much as it's only an online reference. If it is true that source says he is the first, can you please provide the context it is in. For now I have removed it, you're welcome to re-add it but please add it in to the body rather than the lead as I could not see how it would be anything but a fringe view. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you looked at the versions prior to my edit, he was listed as the first. I changed it to third but left the "some say" part in as the revisions prior to mine had citations I was unable to check. Please check those earlier versions before assuming I made the article incorrect.

I never said it was incorrect. Please re-read what I said and provide to me the context it is put in and why they claim this. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to defend the claim that he was first and therefore will not be pursuing the context it was put in. I believe he was the third like you and I was correcting the article to say he was third. The onus to disprove the original claim of Torrens being first is no more mine than yours.Adambondy (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. You uploaded File:DSCN0169.JPG and released it under a free license which is great. But I can't tell who it is. Do you remember? It isn't currently used on any articles. Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like POV tags in general, and I don't think this one is helping. It's kinda like holding someone hostage for a ransom demand. But I know just removing it is going start problems. Will try to reply with more later. In short, there should be a clear specific complaint and an acceptance to remove it should most people disagree. Ie, it needs a good faith "exit strategy" and a sense of reasonableness. I don't see that with this case. Perhaps I was hasty in slapping on a tag, but I kind of knew that the thing I was objecting to wasn't going to stand scrutiny and time. I was also specific, focussed on one point, and prepared to remove it if I was alone in my concerns. I removed it but it got slapped on again for a variety of reasons. I willtry to go through the talk page and work out what it;s about. --Merbabu (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Each one of surturz's concerns listed had been "fixed" or he was the sole dissenter against several other voices. I notice ottre wants it to but is concern was a vague "its pro labour" complaint and something indecipherable about education - not an acceptable justification in my mind. --Merbabu (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering if you could clarify for me why the citation I provided for Fisher's mental illness is invalid. Thanks. SamLin (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about putting in the wrong month of death. I've fixed that up now. SamLin (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you know more than I about images in WP. Is this one okay? [5] It's used in Rudd government--Surturz (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to that. If you spot any other mistakes, just go right ahead and change them. Digestible (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift, regarding the new image, Julie was in town for a Chris Pyne event earlier this year (if he really is a BSD, this event backfired on him because the place was packed). I took the photo and she said it would be fine to use it on Wikipedia. Cheers, --EDH (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the Nationals have already got the green, but also because, quite frankly, the Greens remain a minor party. They are rather unlikely to be winning too many by-elections; when they do, they can have their own colour. So it's simplest (and least confusing) to have Labor in red, the Libs (and predecessors) in blue, the Nats in green and everyone else in grey. (This also includes Lang Labor, etc.) Frickeg (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, however meritable its causes may be, I wouldn't have rated BigSwitch.org.au as a reliable authority on the Oz voting system. Could the AEC not oblige with the info? :) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

he he - i hope you have sense of humour. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some help with User:Ottre/Nation Building and Jobs Plan. I really do support this round of stimulus, so there shouldn't be any hiccups with the wording if you want to go for a FL. Ottre 22:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The edits of A1133628 (talk · contribs) certainly seemed suspect and I was watching them, but you seemed to be handling it.

Nevertheless, today, after asking A1133628 to back up their changes with references, I actually followed the existing ones and the change made to day is backed by this reference. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[6] McMahon? Menzies? Reaching back a bit, aren't you? --Surturz (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt Malcolm Turnbull lays awake at night thinking 'What would Billy McMahon do?'. Admittedly, Kevin Rudd probably does ask himself "What would Gough do?" Or maybe "what would Rex Connor do?" :-) The Libs don't revere their former leaders like the ALP does (lip service to Menzies excepted). --Surturz (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And vice versa too... I think Menzies voted DLP a few times after leaving the Lodge. --Surturz (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Liberal PMs have also disowned their party (Fraser on certain issues, and the aforementioned Menzies who stopped voting Liberal after retiring [7]) --Surturz (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I heard about the NSW Nationals (with some federal pollies) having it's annual conference so did a few emails but couldn't get access to the conference (Since I'm not a member of the party) but got access to the breakfast (Some MP's and local businesses people). Barnaby Joyce was there but miss out on getting a photo (Already one in his article however). Bidgee (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an AN/I currently open which you may be interested in, relating to the continuing behaviour of a certain image deletionist. Orderinchaos 02:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[8] Orderinchaos 07:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, TS9, I added some info about the modern Australian Protectionist Party to the article, then I noticed that you had previously removed some info about this party. Having had a look at that edit, I can see why you removed it. However, they do seem to be getting more active, organizing rallies and leafletting, and they're being quoted by the SMH, so I'd like to see this information stick around in that article, or at least somewhere on WP. cojoco (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than have the materials and refs disappear into some kind of black hole, can I create an "Australian protectionist party" article? It seems a bit callous to simply delete all of this material without moving it somewhere else. cojoco (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've created a stub for the Australian Protectionist Party with very limited info. cojoco (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Utegate, there was no POV pushing going on. As was explained in the Talk section, this was a brand new article with considerable work left to be done. Manning (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift. Glad you missed me. I'm still alive and kicking  :) --Lester 09:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He was member for Stirling 1963-1970 - Adam is a bit off. These lists are done on a parliament basis, so it lists the electorate they held at that time (which was Heysen in 1973). Rebecca (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift - wondering if you could maybe clarify something for me. As you probably know, on the National Library online database, it has a little note saying, "You may save or print this image for research and study. If you wish to use it for any other purposes, you must complete the Request for permission form." (Such as here.) My question is: does this apply to public domain images, like the one I just linked? Or can I just upload them without completing the form? (I'm a bit of an images novice, so sorry if this is an obvious question.) Frickeg (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Thanks! There's an absolute ton that are definitely more than 50 years old for our MP biographies. Frickeg (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw that! A picture does add so much to an article. Now I've just got to learn how to upload these things ... Frickeg (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I figured that after the first few. I'll get on it. Frickeg (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering how come my information on prefernces and the senate got deleted. Im not quite sure if it was you who deleted it. If it wasnt, please ignore this message, cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supun47 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That box was already there. I did not add it. However the box is perfectly consistent with what Bligh herself said on Q&A last night, which is why I altered the text at the top. Digestible (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:WikiTownsvillian added the box citing this article. Digestible (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Re the order, I'm guessing that it's in order of how many votes they got. And Bligh as the top vote getter will be president during the election year. I'm speculating of course, but I seem to recall that's how it worked last time with Rann. Digestible (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift 9

While Vanessa Goodwin is so far ahead she is unlikely to be caught, she has only 37% of the vote and preferences are going to be drawn out because of the number of candidates - I think some sort of tab should e applied to this article until the results are final but I am not sure which tab. What do yoy think? Porturology (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, all right. :) Another election table - what a trial! (Actually I love doing them.) Frickeg (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ta-da! I've just done the basics for the moment - the article could still use lots of fleshing out, which I may help with later if I get the time. Frickeg (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The percentages were on the TEC page when I checked. I did the changes with the swings, since the TEC doesn't include them and it's a simple matter of comparing it with the last election. I also did the informal vote, since for some reason this wasn't given. This doesn't count as OR, does it? (The information is there, after all.) Frickeg (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift, FYI the edits on the Jamie Bloomfield section. Take a look if you're still covering that, re: updates.

Austral56 (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed up the grammar mistakes on the upper hosue results page

I see you are still as stupid and puerile as you were the last time I tried to improve an Australian politics article. Very well, it can stay substandard, I really don't care enough to be bothered arguing with morons like you. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see you reverted my addition to the Peter Garrett article, regarding the claim by the Greens that Garrett had mislead voters into thinking voting for the Greens supported the Liberals. The current text misses the point - as it would have been entirely reasonable for Garrett to urge support for his own party. The controversy is that he took part in Labor's campaign to mislead voters. If you think my insertion was badly worded please suggest how it could be improved. Please refer to my post on Peter Garrett talk --Cowrider (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I noticed that you undid my addition of Tony Abbott's nickname "The Mad Monk".

Abbott has been known by this moniker by the press gallery in Canberra for almost as long as he has been in politics - with both the conservative and left leaning commentators referring to him in this way.

It is known that Abbott doesn't appreciate this handle, however that is not reason for removing it from his page.

It would be appreciated if you could not undo this.

Please refer to the following articles that establish that this is a well known nickname for Abbott:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25850832-5013871,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-remaking-of-the-mad-monk-20090729-e1ip.html

http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/11/29/the-monks-not-mad/

--Judas Goat (talk)17:23 17th August, 2009 (AEST) —Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

True, but it is amusing, and amazingly, it has a supporting reference! But you are quite correct ... Pdfpdf (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fielding's comment was funnier. Apparently Barbaby is trying to be "half-pregnant"... almost as amusing as Fielding being "stuck between two places and a hard rock". Timeshift (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Some politicians never fail to amaze me with the consistency of their behaviour. (Do they take lessons on how to put your foot in your mouth, or is it a natural ability that is correlated with the personality type that wants to be a politician?)

BTW: I was reminded of a very old joke - Q: How do you tell when a politician is lying? A: His lips are moving.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The sooner the next election comes, the sooner the cruft is swept aside. I can't believe the government is held hostage by the vote of such a complete and utter dimwit. Timeshift (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I think you'll find it will just be a case of replacing one set of cruft with a different set of cruft, most (but not all) of it sitting on the government's own benches. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as the Senate has a Labor-Green majority after the election i'm happy. I have time for X, he can showpony if he wants but I don't want him to hold the BOP. Timeshift (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:AustGreens.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the electoral maps. Such a lot to do - I still haven't finished uploading the MPs and senators from the NLA. Thanks also for your help with the Greens colour on my talk page. Frickeg (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is real. I took it from a photo autographed by him. Connormah (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ottre 09:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's hilarious - unless of course you are warning yourself as well as Timeshift. --Merbabu (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Shoo Ottre. Timeshift (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What d'you reckon? Can we fix it? :) Nice work with these! Frickeg (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The mass of red links, that's what! Ack, sorry about Snedden. I had seen that earlier but then I saw him sitting on the 1974 election page and assumed that that meant it was OK. (My knowledge of image copyright is hazy at best.) Thanks for fixing up after me. And with regards to Ind Lib - in the past, when I've been doing election results pages, I've ignored them because they tend to be quite arbitrary designations. Some people, for example, would call Peter King or Paul Filing Independent Liberal, but the AEC (and the Parliament, as far as I'm aware) begs to differ. I've found it generally safer to leave them all as Independents. Additionally, it makes the tables fairly messy - if we are going to have them, I'd say they'd need a template. Frickeg (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A template would be easy enough to put together (although I think some discussion would be in order for whether they get a straight Independent colour or something else), but I'm still fairly unsure about the designations themselves. If we are going to have them, there'll have to be a definitive source that we go to. As far as I'm aware the Parliamentary Handbooks don't use this designation (although from memory they don't have any designations in elections prior to 1949). Frickeg (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can u please explain to me what was bizzare about the labor party edit that u deleted --Supun47 (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

1. That edit was put in the structure of the labor party party. the voting base of the labor party should b included on that section. eitehr taht or the edit couldve been moved somewhere else. 2. As far as no cites go, yes there were no cites, however there was not a single cite throughout the entire structure of labor party section. I dont see any of that section get deleted however you pick on taht one edit... 3. I dont know what you mean by awkward working 4. I dont see that i generalised any of that. its clear and well known that the portion of Australians who are solid labor voters are people from the working class, unionists, younger people, migrants and progressives. Of course not all labor voters fit into those categories however a large percentage do. And if you disagree with that then please tell me, who are the people who make up a large portion of the Labor party voting base. --Supun47 (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I havent had time to update it but you may feel free to update it. If no one has updated it when i log back on, ill update it. (talk) 10.00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a really difficult question, since it's obviously a bit of a grey area. There are times when I wonder whether they really qualify as separate parties. But to answer your question: yes, I do think you were correct. The DLP was officially wound up in 1978, and anyone still running under the banner would still come under the new party. That's the system I've used when making the electorate pages, anyway. Frickeg (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest the article chosen and content added leaves a pretty big hint. (I probably got to it before you saw it but they'd exactly copied your user page and talk page) Orderinchaos 00:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And another... Orderinchaos 07:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[9] Orderinchaos 03:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My two cents - Probably still worth having that content somewhere as Rann's pledges were rather prominent and the text (a credit to yourself) was well written and well referenced. Just the fact it went nowhere and died in a parliamentary vote in the very house intended for reform (a self-preservatory move almost as old as the sun - Queensland only managed it by using its strange, arbitrary rules to stack the thing with people who had no stake in self-preservation) should also be noted. Orderinchaos 04:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know - I'd say SALC is a safe location for now. Orderinchaos 04:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you arguing that those years on PM infoboxes should be retained? the consenus excuse you gave me (and it is an excuse, albeit a poorly thought out one) does not explain anything. for example John Howard did indeed contest the 1987 election but he did not win it and Bob Hawke was PM. So why should it be in a box concerning his term in office? It belongs in the main article about his first term as Opp leader. You arguing to the contrary has me baffled. This applies to these pages as well: James Scullin, George Reid, Arthur Fadden, Gough Whitlam, Robert Menzies, John Curtin. I just dont understand...please explain! Regards Stravin (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded nor explained your reasons, I'd like to take the liberty of referring you to this wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus". It may come in handy next time. Regards Stravin (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My only suggestion would be to go to your nearest state library (or the National Library, of course) and see if they have any old parliamentary handbooks. (I know for a fact the National Library does, because I raided them for all the parties designations pre-96.) If you get the right years they have pictures of all the MPs. (I'm not sure of the legality of scanning photos, but if they qualify for PD then surely it's fine ...)

Actually, I've been meaning to ask you regarding images: does the recent rationale used at Peter Andren, etc., mean that we can use photos of any dead politician, regardless of when they were taken? And is the rationale used at Colleen Hartland (and the other Vic Greens) legitimate? If so, surely that means ... Frickeg (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I found your edit summary here a little rude. Moving the tag to a single section is incorrect, the majority of the article is unsourced and the tag applies to more than a single section. Given that most of the article could have been deleted under BLP policy, I hardly think adding the tag to attract people to improve the article is "pointless". From WP:TC: "In obscure articles with few editors, the templates can serve to attract attention to problems that have not been addressed. In articles that are heavily edited or discussed, templates can be used to indicate ongoing problems or disputes in order to attract outside help and caution readers that the content may be shortly subject to change. Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article." Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 02:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been brought to my attention on my talk page that my comments above may have come off other than I had intended. If so, I apologize. I really was just trying to get more sources added to the article so that the multiple inline citation tags could be removed, improving readability. I always try to add references to articles as opposed to simply tagging them (as I had done here earlier in the day), but was on a time crunch. All's well that ends well though, as additional sources have been added. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 04:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeshift9, there's no rational reason for the changes you have made. All you have done is remove factual information so I can only assume the intent is a personally motivated one / vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curleighandmowe (talk • contribs) 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

.........................................................

Re the changes on Nathan Rees site. Information put is fully accurate, provable and citable. Please advise protocol difficulties. Wish right of free speech but realise obligation to Wiki is absolute accuracy. Not vandalism nor POV. Facts as printed in revertable objects. Advise ? Yours In goodwill.

9 CDP candidates in a total pool of 22 in the Bradfield by-election. ABC AEC Scary to think the amount that's going to cost in non-refundable nomination fees alone. Orderinchaos 02:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Australian Sex Party's logo, as displayed on the ASP article here on Wikipedia, clearly shows the colours red and either a deep yellow or orange. Is this acceptable to you, to use the colors on their logo? or does the term Party not mean they are an individual candidate such as an Independent candidate? BTW, I have done some editing on Nathan Rees I would like to read your detailed critisisim on my talk page or that article instead of a three word expert opinion. Watchover (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Timeshift (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You have violated WP:BURDEN at a WP:BLP article, by your recent actions at the article Nick Xenophon. Do not do this again. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for excessive violations of the biographies of the living persons policy.. Addition of unsourced content into a biography of living person, especially after a warning, is completely unacceptable. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. NW (Talk) 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This block was heavy-handed and ill-justified. I see nothing in this diff to justify a one week block. There isn't even 3RR at work here. I have unblocked, reverted the text (with the sole exception of the text about health difficulties at the end) and will refer my own actions to AN/I following this post. Orderinchaos 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see something. Why? Because Cirt warned him in the section above this, yet Timeshift added it back again. I'm not going to wheel war, but the ANI will be interesting. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The above sounded more like "Do not disagree with me or else", given it was basically a content dispute. Orderinchaos 04:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Was not a "content dispute". Was an enforcement of site policy regarding WP:BLPs. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, per WP:BURDEN, should have allowed the uncontentious paras to remain with tags to draw attention to the fact they needed refs, before he went removing them with such a bitter attitude. Timeshift (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, any unsourced content on BLPs should be removed. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Timeshift9. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment [10] at Talk:Xenophon - Please, take a moment to read through a few of the articles that I have successfully gotten to WP:FA status on the subject, and perhaps you will see that my intention at the Nick Xenophon article was not an attempt to denigrate the Senator, but rather to make sure unsourced info does not get re-added to a WP:BLP article. I think you have got the wrong idea about me. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Here's hoping we can move past the prior conflict and work towards improving the quality on the article about Senator Nick Xenophon. :) Cirt (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you have yet to respond to above. I truly am trying to WP:AGF here and move forward. :) I welcome your positive contributions to the article Nick Xenophon, and I thank you for adding more sourced information to the article. Cirt (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think my response to cojoco below sums up my feelings succinctly. Timeshift (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, TS9, I was sorry to read about that palaver with NX. I hope that everyone's honour is preserved. I think I quite understand your actions in attempting to defend long-standing material, and added a note to say as much on the noticeboard. cojoco (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. I don't have too much to say. As my mother always said... if I don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. I do however feel vindicated by the words and actions of other various users and admins. That's all I have to say on that matter. Timeshift (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

When adding new information and sources to the article Nick Xenophon, could you please utilize citation templates for the references, instead of simply giving plain external links as the cites? This will help to make things much easier as Orderinchaos (talk · contribs) and I work together to improve the article towards WP:GA quality-rated status. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but it's how i've been rolling for three years. Timeshift (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

They are quite easy to use, and like I said it would be most helpful in working together to improve the article to WP:GA status. Cirt (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

When editing at the article Nick Xenophon, could you please try to use Edit summaries in your edits? This will make for a more constructive editing process, where we all have at least some semblance of what each others' edits are doing, as we work together to improve the quality of the article to WP:GA status. You can set a prompt to always have an edit summary or be told when you accidentally forget to do so, at Special:Preferences. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Per above. Please cease your demands, everyone edits their own way. Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a demand, but a polite request. Thank you very much for using the word "please", I most appreciate that. Cirt (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotes need cites directly after those quotes, not just at ends of paragraphs. Especially in WP:BLP articles. Please do not remove the {{fact}} tags until this is remedied (or the quotes are removed). Cirt (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[11] = there are two cites following that quote. Which one verifies the quote? Cirt (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, by Orderinchaos (talk · contribs). :) We still have a couple other spots to cite fix. Cirt (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In Question Time today: "The member for Pyne... the member for Sturt, the pining member for Sturt" Orderinchaos 03:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Timeshift9. I noticed your revert on this article. I followed the 'trail' back to the 'editor' and found they had also vandalised the Fred Nile article. I reverted it so all ok, for now. "138.130.100.204" may need to be kept under surveillance, or a warning dropped on their page. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that you'll be amused by this edit (which the IP editor has since reverted). Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL vio! :-O --Surturz (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. In the edit summary of this edit, you wrote: sir and other prefixes are not to be used anywhere except the lead of that person's page.

I wonder if you can point me to a policy or consensus on that. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I was smirking like Peter Costello when I typed this. lol --Surturz (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The woman later revealed that she wanted her estranged husband back, and that she has moved to Queensland.[12]
Perhaps the writers of "Home & Away" should be taking notes? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think both points are relevant. Timeshift (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know - or at least, I don't think it's irrelevant. That wasn't my point.

My point, which was supposed to be amusing, is that it is more interesting than "Home & Away" ...

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for misinterpreting your words.

Mea Culpa.

I can't believe quickly politics has changed here. I just hope like others who've been in his position that the electors don't care. Timeshift (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I expect that those who were, or were not, going to vote for him anyway, are unaffected. As for the "undecided", I hope that the state of the Murray, lower lakes and Coorong are of greater importance to them, than is Kerry Stokes making another million. (Though, if Stokes continues to buy Oz VCs that would otherwise end up overseas, then I guess I'm in favour of him making as many millions as he needs in order to continue to do so ... )

Ho hum. Bed time. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I'd like to bet you that after the Next Australian federal election, Tony Abbott will be sworn in as Prime Minister of Australia. If I win, you will put a picture of a Liberal pollie of my choice on the top of your user page for 30 days (Maybe Abbott, probably Captain Smirk). If I lose, I put a picture of a Labor pollie of YOUR choice on my user page for 30 days. Have we got a bet? :-) --Surturz (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Coward :-) Look I agree that on paper, Abbott hasn't got a chance. But I'm hoping the electorate votes for the leader with principle rather than for the one without. Rudd never cared about an ETS, he only cared about wedging the Libs. I don't hear him going cap in hand to the independents. Even the Greens are against the CPRS, IIRC. --Surturz (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the tragedy of the modern Australian Left that because their core ethos - the socialisation of the means of production - has been debunked, issues are only as important as their effect on the opinion polls. The ALP have been going on an on about the need to bring in the CPRS quickly but now it has been rejected twice they plan to reintroduce it a THIRD time in February?^[1] Why not go to the polls and settle the issue? Because they don't really care about the CPRS, their only motive is to wedge the opposition. --Surturz (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gulp! The perils of copy-and-paste! Frickeg (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone (can't recall who) changed the template a while ago so that if you want the template to show up in infoboxes you now need to enter it in Template:Australian politics/party colours. I didn't challenge it because it seemed to me a rather good idea. I made a name template for the party too, so should all be in order to me. Frickeg (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no emotional investment in any of this, I am merely enforcing the wikipedia style. Telling me to "CEASE" in capitals mind you seems to think this is some vendetta, which is odd as I have not editted these articles... well maybe in two years? –– Lid^(Talk) 11:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you have been blocked in the past for edit warring, you know the rules. If you revert edits to November 24 again you will be blocked without further warning. Discussion on the topic is ongoing and evidently no consensus exists. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:AndrenReport.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent you a heap of polling stats re the 1972 election that I'd scribbled down years ago and found this morning while cleaning my room. Orderinchaos 00:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - they're quite fun to do, actually. (And voila!) One of the best bits is seeing how things have changed - Maranoa sitting in the "Very safe Labor seats" column always gives me a smile. Frickeg (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - and you're quite right. They do creep in there, and it's because a lot of those kinds of edits involve a lot of copy-and-pasting (of infobox templates, election box templates, succession box templates, etc.). I do try to preview everything (and I catch quite a few - I had an amusing infobox at one stage claiming that a politician was aged -153), but these things do slip quite often. I can only be thankful that there are people like you who help me pick up the ones I've missed! I probably do need to be a bit more careful, though ... (As for the next federal election - I'd love to have all the past results pages up before it comes around, but I can't see that happening, somehow ...) Frickeg (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... the motivation ... I guess it's because I'm an obsessive information collector, and I get enormous satisfaction from the pages/infoboxes/etc. when they're done. Also I use them myself an awful lot - before I was on Wikipedia I was making a lot of those kind of pages on Word documents, and it's so much more useful to make Wikipedia pages. The motivation does go after a while, though, which is why I've usually got about five or six different things I'm working on. When I'm tired of infoboxes for senators ages ago, I can move on to election results; if I get sick of them, there are past state politicians needing pages (few things are more satisfying than watching a red link turn blue); if I get tired of them, I can go and find some pictures. (When Antony Green brings out the long-awaited (by me anyway) historical Legislative Council results, I'll be able to do some more candidates tables too - one of my favourite jobs.) As for one-term MPs - well, a lot of the time they're actually very interesting. Alexander Hay, for example, is an article I'd love to significantly expand one day - and Edward St John, Andrew Jones and Peter Richardson are all fascinating one-termers too. (And collaboration is king indeed! Not long after I created the St John stub, someone with better access to sources expanded it significantly, and now it's quite a decent article - that's satisfying too. :) ) Frickeg (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. You don't like the Howard Govt/Rudd Govt articles, but then go and revert the stuff I copypasted out of the Rudd Govt article into the Chris Evans article. Since it is all extant, referenced, consensus text I fail to see why you are opposed to this, to the point of shopping around for meatpuppets. --Surturz (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Love is all around... --Merbabu (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I had a browse through the discussion page of the McMahon article and I cannot find anything that suggests it was agreed upon that the picture you reverted to was better suited. Do you believe that it is the sole better picture? In my opinion, it looks unsightly and is no match to the other. Watchover (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Patience my friend. I hope to have a Leader of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales page up within the hour Porturology (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Not quite sure what you are referring to Porturology (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A few days ago, you put a prod on an article about Rudd's visit to Japan. Nick-D says that you are getting ready to try to get it deleted. Is this still the case?

If so, this is too bad because other editors have said the article is much better. Furthermore, a less notable trip was deemed notable, the travelogue of the 2009 Barack Obama visit to China. If articles are deleted, that article is more qualified for deletion.

Let me know because if you are going to try to throw away my work, I will stop work on it. JB50000 (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Kahn mistakenly thought I was threatening to delete the 2009 Barack Obama visit to China. No, I was alerting you of a similar style of article so that you could be convinced to keep both articles. Of course, such tactic could backfire and you could try to delete both of them. JB50000 (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)