User talk:Surturz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi Surtz! There's a discussion about content of yours here you might wish to contribute to. Timeshift (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ReachTEL poll of 3500, new opposition on 53-47 just a few months after losing govt.[edit]

Are we lulling yet? Oh, you're on a wikipedia lull! What interesting timing! Poor thing :) Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm expecting first few Newspolls of the year to show some improvement: boats have stopped. --Surturz (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Timeshift (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
From that article: "Fact Check consulted two researchers from the University of Queensland who specialise in data analysis, Dr Angela Higginson and Jason Ferris. They modelled the data and concluded that: "There has been a statistically significant reduction in the number of arrivals since the Coalition took Government... But it sits as part of a trend in reductions of arrivals that began with the last government. So in short, Mr Morrison is right, but he's not taking context into account." (emphasis mine)
Since that article has arrived, there have been boat turnbacks, which was never part of the ALP policy. The PNG regional resettlement was a policy capitulation by the ALP anyway, since it emulated the Coalition policy: boat arrivals do not get permanent settlement in Australia. --Surturz (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
So what would you say, a 90% reduction prior to the Coalition came to power, and then another 90% reduction from the fraction left over? Timeshift (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ouch!!! BludgerTrack showing the traditional big LNP state leads are all but gone! Best LNP 2PP is 51.3% in WA and that's barely anything! LNP in NSW is 50.7%! Losing EVERYWHERE else! 59% ALP 2PP in VIC!!! Where did it all go so historic-record wrong so quickly. :D Timeshift (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You've barely touched political articles since the election! Did you lose your motivation as quickly as support for the new govt evaporated? :) Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't be bothered with the dramah. Too many lefty editors at the moment to get consensus for any sort of mainstream content. We're in trouble when WP:CONS trumps WP:V. --Surturz (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
How interesting, I think too many tories to get consensus for mainstream content! You know what they say when both sides complain... :) Timeshift (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back! There's NPOV and then there's selective article edit-lexia, and that's one of your starkest examples :D Timeshift (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... what? You complain that I don't edit ozpol articles, and then when I do you complain also. Make up your mind :-P My edit was factual, NPOV, and referenced. I fail to see what you are complaining about. --Surturz (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not complaining about anything! Obviously you don't know what selective article edit-lexia is ;P Timeshift (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Liberal Party's moderate voice goes silent under Tony Abbott's leadership. It's so sad that the same demographic Howard chased after is being chased again, with such a shallow parliamentary gene pool... sheep Liberal MPs who wouldn't know a Liberal conscience if it bit them. I know too many people including several in the extended family who used to vote Liberal until 1996 - and not again for the foreseeable future. What's a wet to do? Timeshift (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Top pic - not Peta Credlin too! :P Timeshift (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

On average, the ALP-Greens were drowning four asylum seekers per week while they were in office. Why weren't there GetUp! protests then? Why didn't the Greens do something about it while they had balance of power in the lower house? Now that the boats have stopped, the number of people in detention is dropping. --Surturz (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
So you say the previous government drowned people at sea but I assume you believe the current government doesn't injure/kill people inside (and outside, but Morrison wouldn't know it) detention centres? Oh the hypocrisy is so rank. I take it by your rhetoric you're not a wet then? Are you as brainwashed as Kelly O'Dwyer? Look at all those countries killing asylum seekers!! Or do you just enjoy taking the story to the most possible base level for political gain too? Honestly Surtz. Timeshift (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And Bronwyn's just a shocker. Since when can't there be argument in a question in question time? If there shouldn't be argument in a question then Abbott's entire time in opposition should have been ruled out of order. Worse than Hawker. Disgraceful and a mockery of democracy. And then what does Abbott do? Just talk about Labor. Who's in government?! Isn't it all about the government?! Timeshift (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

How many refugees have drowned in the last two months? None. How many boat arrivals have been put in detention in the last two months? None[1]. Your arguments are not WP:V --Surturz (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
So now we're no longer a country that kills asylum seekers (that aren't in our custody)! Phew! For a second there... Timeshift (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Newspoll lol, took Rudd a term to get to those sat/dissat ratings and Labor two terms to get to those 2PP ratings. Poor Surtz and the rest of the tories. Timeshift (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Operation Sovereign Murders? Oh dear. What's on his mind? And WTF!! Timeshift (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

HAHAHA oh where to start! Pots and kettles for starters LOL! Timeshift (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Small target backfires. Ahh the sweet justice :) John Hewson's legacy still dividing and killing the Libs I see. Timeshift (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

About time! Bronwyn Bishop... what a mockery of westminster democracy. Timeshift (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Back again I see. Regarding the thread topic, 47-53 would be considered a good poll for you now, wouldn't it? ;) Hey, remember during the Nelson/Turnbull days when Julie Bishop would get asked why the polls were so bad for them, and she kept saying that the public always give a new government a lot of buffer? What the hell happened?! :D Timeshift (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought you South Australians consider 47% to be a majority? :-) --Surturz (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Coalition definitely not doing well in the polls, I agree. --Surturz (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
47% isn't a majority but 49% is? One-term Howard? :) It's a single-member system, not a popular vote. Labor lost their majority unlike the 1998 fed Libs. What should have happened, 23 seats all and a new expensive election? I don't exactly see people rising up on to the streets in protest at the gerrymander like they did in Playford's time. Oh wait, that's because there is no gerrymander! The SA Liberals are absolutely hopeless at marginal seat campaigning. And it's the SA Liberals that picked the damn guidelines back in 1989! Honestly. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
And the current Lib MPs stink, you can see it in the fact that there was a 2pp swing against the Libs in 12 of their 22 seats - a majority of them. If you took only the metropolitan seats in the 2PP calculation it would be a very different result, a clear Labor majority. Several state metro Lib seats had 8%+ 2pp swings in some booths, the largest being St Peters in Marshall's seat with 15%! The others were the usual suspects... Evans, Chapman, Redmond, others. And you can see it in the federal results too - Labor retaining Makin, Wakefield, Adelaide and Kingston despite being in opposition and not by the barest of margins either. SA Fed Labor has only one safe seat you know. Makin is your Newland. Wakefield is your Light. Kingston is your Mawson. Adelaide... you've got your Ashford, Elder and Torrens, but state Adelaide is a very different seat to federal Adelaide - though the 3 of 4 Liberal CBD booths swung back to Labor again 2014 :) Boothby and Mayo returned significantly weaker 2pp results than 1996 - check, while Sturt is your Morialta and Hartley - check. :) The statewide 2PP for a state with such a centralised population is something that i'm sure Antony Green will write about at some point and will make for very interesting reading. But it really should go without saying - the SA Libs, both state and fed, are a hopeless affair. But that won't stop people like Pyne claiming that the SA govt is somehow illegitimate. I'm sure he would have been a supporter of the Playmander without hesitation though. Timeshift (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The PM you never had tee-hee :) Timeshift (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Journalist to Abbott: Would you perhaps consider talking to julia gillard to get some tips on how to deal with the crossbench? LOL! Timeshift (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No new taxes under an Abbott govt[edit]

Lib MPs in revolt over another Abbott broken promise. No new unexpected taxes under a govt he leads...? So it's not a new tax, it's not a nasty surprise, if it's temporary? The carbon tax was to progress to an emissions trading scheme, so that was temporary too. Oh the standards Abbott held in opposition can finally be applied to him! Wear that crown of thorns! WEAR IT!! What happened to the pre-election magic pudding Hockeynomics that said it's possible to increase spending while reducing taxes? :D Timeshift (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Lordy lordy lordy. What a pickle. Abbott will pay the new tax that he promised not to introduce so it's all ok? The temporary carbon tax was being paid by the PM too you know! Go polls, go!! :D Timeshift (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What a terrible budget! Absolutely disgraceful! I wonder how bad the polls will be for the government AFTER their first budget? Dead-cat bounce? Dead-cat freefall. Timeshift (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Guessing competition: Surturz would __ ___ for Timeshift[edit]

Hmm... didn't you say you expected the LNP's position to improve by now? And what's the deal with the Greens? It's only one poll but whoa! Timeshift (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I had said that. I've now realised that boat arrivals can only lose votes: no poll bounce for stopping them. Knights and Dames was unhelpful, too, I think. --Surturz (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Fascinating, but keep going :) I feel sorry most for SA Liberals. No federal honeymoon, and already behind in the polls and in record time and have more or less remained there, unlike the previous government. No state win, record time in govt for Labor and Libs consigned to four more years of opposing. It's the longest time in govt in SA history for any party if you exclude the undemocratic Playford era! Meanwhile, the WA Libs with a third of the vote don't get a third of seats but half of seats (66% of WA voters didn't vote Liberal, ha!), while Labor with over a fifth of the vote get only one seat, like Sports' previously did on 0.2%! Proportional my left eye. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
As an outside observer not very familiar with SA politics, I'd blame the ECSA. They were meant to redraw the boundaries in 2012 to provide majority 2PP=majority of seats, according to the SA constitution. They didn't, saying that the previous election in 2010 was unusual. So now in 2014 the Coalition get 53% 2PP but still not enough seats to form govt. Anywhere else in the country 53% 2PP would be a solid win.
You've got a defensible argument about the WA re-election results, but remember the quota is 1/7th not 1/6th i.e. 1/7th of the vote "loses" and does not contribute to a quota. LIB + PUP + NAT + AC + LDP is well over 57% (= 4 quotas), and ALP + GRN + HEMP is well short of 43% (=3 quotas), but I agree that's an arguable calculation.
HEMP party stays in the count far too long (sees off the Nationals with 3x the primary vote!). Group voting tickets have to go. --Surturz (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You would blame the electoral commission, wouldn't you. "Anywhere else in the country 53% 2PP would be a solid win" sounds word for word what Abbott said following the SA election - Lib 101 black book referencing I see ;) Is 49% federally acceptable but 47% for a state not? Should Howard have been a one-term govt? Where should the line be drawn exactly? In a single member system with a small and centralised population, it is impossible to ensure a majority 2PP = majority of seats. But if you take away the two independents where their seats had Liberal 2PPs, the Libs had 24 with Labor on 23 (there is no Coalition in SA so please don't use that term when referring to us :). The majority 2PP statewide won the 2PP in a majority of seats, did they not? :) Anywho, the ECSA have been blamed for constantly whittling away popular govt MP margins. They've whittled away Mawson but Biggles keeps on improving his vote at every election! Ashford margin went from 4.8% to 0.6% but the Libs got a swing against them!! Actually, you'd be surprised how many seats actually swung away from the Libs toward Labor - not exactly the signs of a change of govt. Where is there any sign[2][3] that the boundaries are in any way unfair, just because the swings aren't uniform? The Libs should be in govt but they can't even carry seats like Light and Newland? Oh come now. Just because the bush seats have whopping majorities, doesn't mean Libs should be in govt. Why can't they carry metropolitan seats? I've read that at SA Labor HQ, there's a tally board for all marginal seat holders that get a mark for every voter interaction and they all compete to have the highest. As opposed to the Brown/Olsen/Kerin govt where marginal seat holders were too busy attacking each other to get out to their electorates. As Antony says, what should the ECSA do? Cartographic wheel spoke electorate boundaries? They've already been extending metro seats in to nearby rural areas, but to go further would be wheel spokes. The metropolitan 2PP was not 53% Lib, clearly it was Labor with >50%. We are unique amongst the mainland states in that SA does not have any substantial population centres outside of Adelaide. Traditional redistributions cannot change that. The ECSA have made it as fair as possible. UNLIKE the days of the undemocratic Playmander. Glass houses. Remember, technically, a party only needs to contest 24 of 47 seats with a 50.1% 2PP in each and a statewide 2PP of 25% to win majority govt. I did enjoy it when Abbott said that the party with the majority 2PP should have formed government - oh the irony! *cough* 2010 *cough*. Bottom line, majority on the floor of the house = govt benches, which is all that matters and is what always has mattered. The SA Libs are smarting :D Timeshift (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course I agree there is a tension between representative democracy and majority 2PP across the whole state. However, even though theoretically possible, if anyone actually won government with 25%+1 of the vote I think the alarm bells would be ringing. I don't think 2010 (TPP 50.12% ALP) is comparable with the SA election. I think it is reasonable that Electoral Commissions redraw boundaries so that a recalculation of the previous election yields a seat count in line with the 2PP. My point is mainly that the ECSA has a constitutional requirement to do so, but didn't. I don't know the geography of SA well enough to really comment, but if wheel-spoke electorates are needed to yield a fair electoral outcome, then so be it. --Surturz (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The ECSA has a constitutional requirement to ensure fairness in the aim that a majority of the 2PP wins the election. They believed the fairness in the boundaries was there to allow this. If the metro area is voting for Labor and the country is voting for the Liberals more strongly, then tough cookies. That's not a lack of fairness, that's losing the metro 2PP and therefore a minority of metro seats. Howard won in 1998 despite Labor winning 51% of the 2PP. If Labor carried NSW they would have won, but they didn't. It is a fair electoral outcome. The Libs did not win the metro 2PP. They even went backward in many seats. But remember, Frome and Fisher returned Liberal 2PPs, and that's what they consider when doing redistributions. So the party that won the statewide 2PP did infact win the 2PP in a majority of seats. The 2CP is irrelevant to the boundaries commission. As Antony says... "And all the Commission can do is try and predict what will happen next time. Do we lambaste economists and meteorologists in the same way for not predicting future events correctly?" and "The points you raise on fairness and dealing with Independents are entirely true. It is a point I and many others have written about in South Australia for more than two decades." Maybe if the Libs stopped their constant attacks on independents they'd be more amenable to backing them. Timeshift (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


Oh, and I hope Abbott of all people enjoys the crossbench of all crossbenches in the new Senate. Negotiating with a crossbench? SATANIC! :) Timeshift (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Independents could brought down the Gillard government at any time. Senate cross-bench can't do that, they can only veto legislation. --Surturz (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Really? You don't say. But Abbott will have to negotiate with the crossbench of all crossbenches. PUP will block Direct Action. This is all Abbott's failure, not PUP's. After all, that's the standard Abbott applied to Labor, isn't it? The failure of Direct Action to pass will be Abbott's fault. Timeshift (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there will be many Liberal MPs lying awake at night if direct action is delayed by the Senate :-) --Surturz (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. What a copout that Direct Action won't be proven the sham that it is. So is "climate change crap" to Abbott or does he believe in climate change and the answer is Direct Action? Shonky. Timeshift (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
'Direct Action' is the consolation prize. Either the ALP and Greens back it and make it work as best they can, or they get nothing. I don't think there is any scientific evidence that there is a causal link from taxation to global average temperatures. Merchant bankers with their spreadsheets are going to save the world? Give me a break. --Surturz (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Direct Action will cost more and achieve less to nothing. Your response is very glib. Supporting a state solution over a market solution - oh the irony! Speaking of correlations, I notice one between the stocks of the Coalition and your editing or lack thereof. This was your last substantial contribution. C'mon Surtz! :) Timeshift (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Optional Preferential Voting[edit]

And as for group voting tickets, I agree, though i'd be worried that for the Libs would introduce optional in the lower too, just because for the first time in 100 years, since the conservatives introduced it for Lib+Nat, preferences aren't going their way, is a massive indulgence and one that should not be entertained. Though if lower house optional was introduced, i'd be voting Labor instead of Green so my lower house vote wouldn't be wasted - and i'm sure most others would do the same in the lower house. Just do the ATL preferencing change only and everyone should be happy. I like my 2PPs :) Timeshift (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I favour Optional Preferential everywhere. Compulsory preferential just means unknowns nominating and voters being forced to donkey vote after their initial preferences. Democracy works best when electors vote for candidates and parties they know. --Surturz (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
How many lower house prefs elect unknowns? It's not like the upper. Timeshift (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not an argument to keep compulsory prefs. --Surturz (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
True though. But again, just because for the first time in 100 years, since the conservatives introduced it for Lib+Nat, preferences aren't going their way, is hypocritical and a massive indulgence and one that should not be entertained. Wouldn't you agree the conservatives keep changing the rules to suit their own ends? Introduce full preferential when they need it, and want to remove it when it no longer suits them. Timeshift (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
"Swan by-election, 1918"? You're blaming the Coalition for things that happened almost a century ago? OPV is the best of all worlds, electors can vote for minor parties without their vote being wasted, but they are not forced to vote for people they don't want to vote for. There is a defensible argument that the legitimacy of the government is enhanced with a majority (rather than a plurality) - but you are not making that argument. You only seem to care which party the system favours. --Surturz (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's how long we've had full-preference IRV. I'm not blaming the coalition for changing it then, i'm blaming them for keeping it all this time and only now, just because for the first time in 100 years, since the conservatives introduced it for Lib+Nat, preferences aren't going their way, is hypocritical and a massive indulgence and one that should not be entertained. I care that no votes are wasted. If a vote exhausts, it doesn't count to whom is elected. Timeshift (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Antony Green is a strong advocate for OPV and I don't think you would accuse him of being partisan - his argument is that OPV reduces the incidence of informal voting[4] (in fact, he says that OPV advantages the ALP, since their voters have a higher incidence of just marking 1 in a single box). Imagine that there are three candidates in an electorate: Liberal, Labor, and Greens. Assuming that the Greens candidate is eliminated first, why should Greens voters be forced to choose between Liberal and Labor in their second preference, for their first preference to be counted? --Surturz (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So the vote isn't exhausted. The realistic choice of govt is a Labor govt, or a Lib/Nat Coalition govt. Everyone should decide which is the lesser of two evils if they wish to cast a formal vote IMHO. One would also have to wonder if we would still have a lower house crossbench of five if people who vote for major parties didn't have to fully preference. The more on the crossbench, the better for democracy. And 2PP is more meaningful when it's full-preference IRV - I love my 2PPs :D Timeshift (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

ICAC and O'Farrell[edit]

Yet another Lib NSW Premier resigns over corruption findings. O'FARRELL!![5] HAHAHAHAHA!! OH THE IRONY!!! If only we could all forget a $3000 bottle of vintage Grange delivered to our home and a replying letter of thanks. He says he has no recollection of it but ACCEPTS there's a thankyou note signed by him?! Why not declare the wine when he received it, what's he hiding?! WTF!! An act of honour according to Abbott? Imagine if it was Labor!? Oh the sad faces on the Sky News presenters! Sky now questioning the legitimacy of ICAC, questioning whether a bottle of wine is relevant. Like clockwork. :D So NSW, Vic and NT all have "unelected" heads of government. When's it Abbott's turn? :D Timeshift (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

O'Farrell was not found corrupt. It was proved he gave untrue evidence to ICAC, probably mistakenly. Imagine if it were Labor, eh? They would have stayed in power. It bugs me that ICAC has knocked off two honest Liberal Premiers but done nothing to stop the corruption of the Labor years. --Surturz (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Mistakenly? LOL! Have you even read his categorical denials and the production of his handwritten note? If only we could all forget that and a bottle of $3000 Grange from our birthyear, delivered to our home! I should drive up to Penfolds soon and thank them :) And sorry, what Labor premiers were corrupt? Is that libel? If they were corrupt then ICAC would deal with it. Do you have evidence? Honest Liberal Premiers. HA! Timeshift (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Where did I say any particular person or premier was corrupt? Plenty of evidence of corruption during the Labor years though. --Surturz (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
And ICAC is dealing with people like Obeid. But you're saying you're annoyed that two "honest Liberal Premiers were knocked off" despite Labor's actions. Timeshift (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


You've stated you're a Liberal supporter numerous times. Did I just imply you're lying? Timeshift (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If "stated" doesn't change the meaning of that sentence in Tony Abbott, then it should be removed as an unnecessary word. But the word "stated" does change the meaning of the sentence, which is why the two of you are keen to put it in. "His motive was to learn" is different in meaning to "His stated motive was to learn". --Surturz (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Define:stated - clearly expressed or identified; specified. "the stated aim of the programme". Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
So does that addition of the word 'stated' change the meaning of the sentence or not? --Surturz (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes it does. It's saying it's what he stated. It doesn't imply he's not telling the truth, it's just saying he stated what his motive was. It doesn't imply lying however. Timeshift (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
So we agree that you are distinguishing between what he says his motive was, and what his motive actually was. By insisting on the distinction, you are implying that the two might not be the same. I agree it doesn't imply that he _is_ lying, however it does imply that he _might_ have been. There are no reliable refs showing that any notable person thinks Abbott had ulterior motives in his indigenous community visits. You should remove the word "stated", because there is no reasonable evidence to suggest that he was lying about his motives. Since Abbott himself is the only person who really knows his motives, and no-one notable has challenged his statement, we can affirmatively assert his motives - we possess the highest level of evidence possible. --Surturz (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is saying he was lying. Just saying that he stated what his motive was. You're really sensitive over such a little word aren't you! Timeshift (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Tom Kenyon - "Kenyon announced he would quit cabinet following the 2014 election stating he wanted to spend more time with his family". Nobody is saying he is lying, just saying that he stated what his motive was :) Timeshift (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You added that text. At least you are consistent in your wrongness :-) I am not making a big deal over it BTW - I removed it, you reverted, and I have let it stand. --Surturz (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I added that text, that's why I was showing you. If I wanted to show you any old example of the use of 'stated' I could have shown you many many articles. I think you may be confusing 'stated' with 'claimed'. But even the word 'claimed' wouldn't be wrong in either the Abbott or Kenyon article. Timeshift (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what reaction you are trying to goad from me, or if you are gloating, or what. I disagree with your use of "stated". Where there is no significant dispute on a subject's self-confessed motives, I think we should simply describe their motives, without pedantically hedging every sentence with the word "stated". --Surturz (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it pedantic to remove the word stated? You removed it from another user's contribution. And that's despite the word 'stated' being used two more times in other areas of the article. Timeshift (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Stated! Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


(Context). Thank you. I think you can both find better things to do. I agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(Here's the "Yes, but ... self justification - ignore it if you wish) Timeshift asked me to do something; I did it; Timeshift complained I had "no consensus" to do it. I got pissed off. Stupidly, I complained that Timeshift is a WP:Dick. If I were a "bigger person", (which sadly, it seems I am not), I would have "walked away". Yes, we "can both find better things to do."
Thank you for reintroducing reality - very clearly, it is something I needed, and your statement is appreciated by me. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. But quite simply, I'm a grumpy-old-man, and I'm not going to let this person steam-roller me - particularly when it was he who asked me to do it! I could have ignored his request, or even have told him that it was a bit rich that after all the shit he's thrown at me, that he was now asking me to do something. But no. Foolishly, I assumed good faith and did what he asked. It seems I was pretty stupid to assume good faith, doesn't it! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


Would appreciate your input here. Your 'go gay for TS' comment has been raised. Timeshift (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So after this debacle would you still go gay for me or is it no longer worth it? :D I'm so gay4jay at present, he's my new Paul Keating :P Timeshift (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't ask, don't tell seems to be the best policy! :-P --Surturz (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your Scott Morrison ANI[edit]

I don't suppose you had anything to do with this? :) You know what's funny, the direct correlation between your decrease in editing and the polling stocks of the fed govt :D Timeshift (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nah, found out about it on Facebook. RE: your second comment, have you seen this? [6] --Surturz (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, a co-incidental correlation? :P Timeshift (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
What are you suggesting, that without my presence, left-wing POV is running rampant through WP and driving down the Coalition 2PP? :-) --Surturz (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Andreas has got your back :) Timeshift (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Whitehouse Institute of Design[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alans1977 (talkcontribs) 05:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahh a Surturz/Skyring bloc! Is it anything like the Day/Leyonhjelm bloc? Who's the Day and who's the Leyonhjelm? :D Timeshift (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Felicia Day? --Surturz (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Ew. FTR I reckon Skyring is the Day and you're the Leyonhjelm :P Timeshift (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean Leyonhjelm from the Avengers movie? :-) --Surturz (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Between him and Keanu Reeves, I do wonder about you... ;) Timeshift (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alans1977 (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Another day, another NSW Lib MP ICAC'd[edit]

Ahh the irony, lol. I maintain, there appears to be a correlation between your activity and the stocks of Liberals :) EIGHT gone. That's not carelessness. That's systemic corruption. Response? Timeshift (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ICAC only picks on the Libs. Should be disbanded. --Surturz (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
LOL! Love the response. Love it. It's just so Campbell Newman :D Timeshift (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, are Obeid, Tripodi, Macdonald and Roozendal all Liberals? Damn News Ltd, make a big song and dance when it's Labor, but barely produce an article when it's Liberal. Typical. Speaking of, will we get the same level of effort for articles like Charlestown state by-election, 2014 and Newcastle state by-election, 2014 from the Liberal cheersquad that they gave a few years ago for Labor-incumbent by-elections? The articles don't even mention ICAC yet.
Not even contesting the by-elections. Pathetic. Atonement is suffering a larger than Miranda 26%+ 2PP thump of a swing. Not running and hiding from the electorate. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)