User talk:Timeshift9

Another dodgy Tony Abbott photo

I'm also a bit worried about File:Tony Abbott.png as it lacks metadata and is a suspiciously small size for a portrait. It was originally added to Wikipedia by Dimensional dan (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited since 2007. The photo claimed that it was taken of Abbott when he visited the editor's office. I've looked on Google images and couldn't find it, but given the age of the photo it may no longer be available online if it was taken from a news story. Do you see any reason to not nominate this for deletion at Commons? (other than the obvious problem that we'd no longer have any photos of Abbott - though I imagine that the Liberal Party's PR machine would soon fix that for us, particularly if we emailed them). Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it gives me no joy, I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons - if you'd like to comment, the discussion is here. My over-riding concern is that if it isn't deleted, it will be reused all over the internet as we get closer to the election. As where attribution is given it will be to Wikipedia or Wikicommons, this will lead to problems if it is a copyvio. Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

It's definitely the better encyclopedia. I don't know why we bother ;) Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's one of many many second rate wikis that usually hold some form of grudge with wikipedia. Wikipedia has 3,145,923 articles, and 19,025,440 pages in total. There have been 357,370,173 edits. There are 869,754 uploaded files. There are 11,320,280 registered users, including 1,707 administrators. Conservapedia can keep him :) But he'll be back in some other form. 09:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, damn wikipedia... requiring reliable services. Not able to conveniently ignore what we don't agree with... Conservapedia is clearly the better choice. :rolleyes: --Austin de Rossi (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Democrats

Timeshift, I just pasted comments on your revert at Australian Democrats. The changes I made I proposed almost two weeks ago. Please discuss your revert on the page. Thanks. Paul Roberton (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshift, I took a step back after I obtained an ex-officio position with the party. I'd like to think I smoothed things over enough to tell you that I'm taking the article and talkpage off my watchlist and taking a long absence to work on the election campaign. I hope you enjoy the 2010, there's plenty more elections for you to document! Regards, Paul 14:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Keating photo

Hi, sorry about the misunderstandiong with the Paul Keating photo. I saw the "new" photo in Wikipedia Commons and assumed that it had been "approved" for use (that is, it had not been deleted). Regards, WWGB (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Timeshift (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keating narrowweb 300x361,0.jpg now has been deleted. Bidgee (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senator the Hon

Hi, looks like you know your stuff - good work on all the work you do in wiki. Quick question, why can't you add Senator the Hon in a sub page for Penny Wong? Can it only appear in her main page above her photo? Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.37.88 (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett and Wong

Wong is also a Minister for the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts - under the Water part - the Department prepares letters, briefs, statements, policies, etc for her under her role as the Minister for Water. The Department of Climate Change does the same but for her as the role of Minister for Climate Change.

She doesn't head up the Department but is a responsible for Water issues under the department, the same as Mike Kelly. Here is the the Department's website, http://www.environment.gov.au/ check under the Ministers section.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.37.88 (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official portraits

Hey, I have noticed that you edit a lot of politics related articles which is what bring me here as I am new to Wikipedia so I don't really know much but I have seen something that puzzles me. Why is it that on the articles about Australian pollies their are either no images or second rate ones like this one of Wilson Tuckey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wilson_Tuckey.jpg. I was wondering can we use their official portraits on the Government website even if their is some copyright (probably crown), cheers --SYDNEYres (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because for living people, Wikipedia only allows free images. If an image has not been released in to the public domain, it cannot be used. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing it up --SYDNEYres (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Rudeness

Any particular reason you are rude to people trying to clean up articles but you think don't belong ... or is it disagree with your view of the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalReviewer (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they don't belong, simple as that. I will be assuming bad faith and not continue any conversation with you as I am highly suspicious of who you are and what your motives are based on other situations on wikipedia over the past few days, your newness, your username, and the contributions you've made thus far. Cya. Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't me - my editing is all in good faith

Photoshop request

Hey Timeshift,

I need you to get someone who knows photoshop to pixelate the faces in Higgins_by-election,_2009_-_Toorak_polling_station.jpg. The woman in black objected to being photographed up close. I'd also appreciate it if you could add Clive Hamilton campaigning in higgins.jpg and Fiona Patten to the myriad articles they belong in. Cheers, Ottre 18:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tough - that's her problem. The photo was taken in a public place. Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Atkinson

Timeshift: I have revised my original contrib to be more neutral and reposted. If you have an issue with this, please respond. ShawnIsHere (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. It has no place on his WP:BIO. Timeshift (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I believe it does. It adds in another perspective (that of a non-supporter) and meets all the requirements. ShawnIsHere (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has already disagreed with you as do I. Only you support your perspective. Gain WP:CONSENSUS rather than forcing your views. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion opened, feel free to rebutt. ShawnIsHere (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate pages

Hi! The 2006 table there is pretty standard, so it's a good template to use - the only unusual thing is that usually all the sources are listed at the bottom of the page rather than the bottom of the table. As SA has no Coalition your job will be much easier, as you won't need to worry about having (Lib) and (Nat) after every Coalition candidate. (Still a big one, but these are among my personal favourites to make.) There's a lot of patience involved, too. Step one is to decide on title headers. I'd say for SA the only ones you'd need at this stage are ALP, Lib, Greens and Family First - there's no one else we can guarantee will run in a sufficient number of seats to earn a column to themselves (except maybe the Democrats). Looking at 2006, the Democrats should at least move further to the right of the table, as the Greens and Family First are definitely more important to the election. Then it's on with the show. I personally find it easier to type the tables rather than the back-spacing, but that's a personal preference. I also tend to have a linked party name on the clipboard (i.e. copy and paste), but if you're doing the backspacing thing that's not so important. The Legislative Council should be fairly simple, I would think. Let me know if you need any help - have fun and good luck! Frickeg (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE the LC, goodness knows. The upper house is always harder to find info for. It's possible they haven't actually been selected yet, of course. If they have, Antony's election guide can't be too far away, so we'd just have to wait for that. Frickeg (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's awkward about it? Frickeg (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's just because it's early days. If you look at other tables (here, or here), you'll see that actually there's the same spacing there. It'll clear up and look much more normal when more candidates with longer names come and widen up the columns. Frickeg (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's possible, and if it is it would involve a whole heap of complex coding, I'm sure. It'll look OK by the time all the candidates are announced. Frickeg (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I've done the Tasmanian one here. Can you see anything I've missed? Frickeg (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have we got two Bob Randalls here? The Family First Party page says that Bob Randall, a "former Liberal state MP and party president", joined the party. There's also the Bob Randall who was Liberal MP for Henley Beach 1979-82 and ran for the Senate for the CDP in 1998. (This is definitely the second Randall.) Are they the same, or different? On another note, does this mean that Brokenshire's retiring? Frickeg (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it wasn't clear, these are in fact the same bloke. I think he may have rejoined the Liberal Party for a while in between his two fundie experiments, though. Rebecca (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can understand my lack of belief, though.

I mean that's actually creepy. HalfShadow 04:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You poor fucker you...What's next; thought police? Sad times. HalfShadow 04:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tammy Jennings

A tag has been placed on Tammy Jennings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Tammy Jennings

I have nominated Tammy Jennings, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammy Jennings. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ttonyb (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

Hi Timeshift,

I recently proposed the deletion of Doug Anthony, an unsourced Biography of a Living Person. You removed the tag, but have not improved the article by adding even a single source. Can you please add some sources to the article? Even a few would be great. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 10:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to jump in, attempting to prod delete articles about people who are plainly notable like a former deputy Prime Minister of Australia is a spectacularly unhelpful action. If you're worried about unreferenced BLPs, notify the relevant Wikiproject and/or edit out any dubious material yourself and/or take the time to look for some sources yourself. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A person who is "plainly notable" shouldn't have had an unreferenced biography for three years. I'm not disputing the fact that he's notable. I'm asking for references to be added, per the WP:BLP policy. It's the right thing to do to help protect against inaccuracies in biographies. As far as "editing out dubious material", material which is completely unreferenced is dubious material, as you must know by now. I'm trilled that the bio has improved already. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references does not give way to a prod. Simple. Timeshift (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that, Timeshift? In point of fact, another admin has been mass-deleting these pages. I figured a prod tag gave editors a chance to improve the content. But simply removing a tag doesn't improve an article. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have to. Clearly seeing that the article is about an MP who was a deputy PM shouldn't be prod as it clearly already states notability, next it will be deputy Presidents. Sorry for jumping in on your talk page, Timeshift. Bidgee (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have all Australian PMs and Deputy PMs on my watchlist (over 2200 pages in total). I've never seen a prod so brazen and silly and unfounded as this. Nobody in their right mind would ever support the deletion of a Deputy PM just out of lack of refs. Just stop, move along and act like you never even prodded it, it's probably best for everyone... Timeshift (talk)

I don't support "the deletion of a Deputy PM". I support the deletion of a completely unsourced article on a Deputy PM. Unsourced Biographies of Living People have the potential to harm the subject of such articles, and have the potential to harm Wikipedia, should lawsuits be filed for defamation. That's one good reason to source articles, and to delete articles which have absolutely no sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but WTF! Anything that may be unsourced and fails WP:BLP should be removed from the article but doesn't necessary mean that the article about a notable person should be deleted, maybe inform the relevant project(s) to improve it but not delete it. Bidgee (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firsfron, I'd suggest that when you are in a hole, stop digging. This would be a snowball keep at AfD if nominated. Prod is meant to be used for uncontroversial deletions. Using it for anything else is an abuse of the process and likely falls under disruptive editing. Orderinchaos 12:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't nominated at AFD; it was prodded in the hopes that sources would be provided; sources have been provided, and the article is already improving. It certainly was not improving during the past three years that it was completely unsourced; prodding it helped the article, and may help other prodded articles as well. Prodding is indeed meant for uncontroversial deletions, from WP:SOURCE: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article". All one has to do to stop the deletion is remove the tag: very simple. When the tag was removed, I didn't revert it, but I did ask the reverter to add some sources. This is certainly within policy, and it seems reasonable to me. I think it should to you, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He said snowball keep at AfD IF nominated, he never said it was. And the rest of your post is pure rubbish. Timeshift (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chillin necessary

Hi...I don't normally resort to leaving any kind of warning on a regulars talkpage, so don't mistake this for one....it's just that your comments at this AfD jar a little (and some of your replies right here on this talkpage do too). I know I don't need to direct you to pages about civility, and I'm sure that you know it's sometimes best to take a pause before replying to people, so 'nuff said. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid AfD, stupid comments... Timeshift (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that shouldn't be how it works - why don't you just present your "keep" case, others will present their opinion, and consensus will do its work. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No GST

Aargh! And I thought I'd been so careful too! Frickeg (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but not very carefully, obviously. Generally I use the preview screen to fix obvious errors (like formatting) so I get out of the habit of checking other obvious things like that. Just slipped through. Fixed now though. (These take ages to do, too, because the stupid AEC doesn't have full results for the pre-2004 elections, so I have to add them up myself. Swings are a pain too ...) Frickeg (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's a good idea to have the full results like that, or like 2007, would it be better (also for consistency) to have a summary table, and then full results on a sub-page? Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rann - (Sorry, couldn't think of a better subject)

Regarding your revert. Given the current circumstances, I'm OK with it. But normally, I'd think you were being a bit "pushy".
Do you think the claim is questionable?
Or are you just reacting to the laziness of the guy who posted it?
Or is there some other factor I haven't thought of? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to see a standalone "citation needed" in the article of a Premier less than 2 months away from an election. It wasn't a critical piece of info, it wasn't fixed up, on balance I thought it was best removed. Timeshift (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. I agree completely. But you haven't addressed my question. From your reply, I'm guessing you're saying that you're "reacting to the laziness of the guy who posted it". Yes? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really think about it to be honest. Sometimes it is out of laziness. Timeshift (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(You wouldn't be a politician yourself would you? (Attempt at humour.))

Well yes, but you must have had a reason. Did you revert it because it was a "loose end", because you felt the claim was questionable, or for some other reason? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loose end - as I said, I didn't like seeing a singular citation needed for something that really wasn't that important, in an article of a government leader less than 2 months from election. Timeshift (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk)

Rann's behaviour

this fails noteability, we aren't starting a list of places
Yes, the contribution should have been reverted, because of lack of relevance to the article in general, and to that section in particular.
I disagree that it "fails noteability", and it has absolutely nothing to do with "a list of places".
If the article had a section addressing Rann's behaviour, it would be highly relevant. But the article doesn't.
Given the sensitivity & timing of the topic, I think you should choose your words more carefully.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does fail noteability in regards to the section. The section is meant to be concise. It is not meant go to over stuff that really doesn't assist in giving a picture of the issue, it's just fluff. It is not a place for a WP:LAUNDRY list of places Rann allegedly avoids/avoided. Timeshift (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote? As I said, it's irrelevant, but I don't see what that has to do with "notability", nor how it "fails notability".

The section is meant to be concise. - Yes.

It is not meant go to over stuff that really doesn't assist in giving a picture of the issue - Yes. That's what "relevance" means.

it's just fluff. - No. I disagree strongly. As I said: If the article had a section addressing Rann's behaviour, it would be highly relevant to a behaviour section. It's just irrelevant to this section.

It is not a place for a laundry list of places Rann allegedly avoids/avoided. - 1) It's not "alleged". 2) Rann didn't avoid the place, he avoided the event in order to avoid the person.

I repeat: Given the sensitivity & timing of the topic, I think you should choose your words more carefully.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest foray

[1], [2] - Come on, get a grip. If you revert with nothing better than WP:I just don't like it, you're going to get hammered from ALL sides. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. I don't understand what you are trying to communicate with this edit. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CNZM

You reverted my edit mentioning that CNZM are not approved post-nominal letters within the Australian honours system. You are correct, of course, but it is entirely appropriate for Mr Rann to include these post-nominals after his name whether or not they have a specific order of precedence. In fact, the site you directed me to -- [3] -- indicates that foreign awards can be worn, but that they are given the lowest precedence. Surely the article on Mike Rann would not be viewed only in Australia, thus the post-nominal letters should be included.

Lovek323 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected your query. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<snip> - full conversation at User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive17#CNZM --Pdfpdf (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And until such time as Lovek323 gets WP:CONSENSUS for their changes, they will keep it off the Rann page. Additionally, if Lovek323 and Pdfpdf wish to continue discussion, they can do it on their own pages. Have a lovely day everyone. Timeshift (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About my edit

You edited my page first as can be seen. Your objection is hypocrisy DavidHuo (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian 2006 election

Would you be able to have a look at the polling section and work your magic on it? Thanks :) Orderinchaos 09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rann

Hi, I've made a comment about your reversions at the talk page. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your latest posting, you've said: "I believe the Advertiser poll can be used here" - I'm guessing that's a typo?

(If not, then I'm really confused by your posting.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(In case I'm not on your watchlist.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:SA06posters.PNG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SA06posters.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rann (again)

In case you haven't already seen, check the talk page. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For putting unsightly tags on Rann's page that seem WP:POINTy if not anything else. Timeshift (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!

Thank you for being more concerned about appearances and your own POV than about facts, accuracy and unsubstantiated claims. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! "If the shoe fits." That's what you said - I didn't put the words in your mouth.

See Mike Rann and Talk:Mike Rann. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Greetings. I wish to ask you to think before you edit.

My (recent) experience is that you have done a number of unsound things (recently), and made a number of unwise comments.

Normally, most people (me included) would think your responses a bit strange, but ignore them.

However, the ones I'm seeing are related to the Mike Rann article, and as there is an election on the horizon, I feel it would be wise for ALL editors to think hard before they hit the "save" button and consider how their contributions may be interpreted by others. It would also be wise to be VERY sure of any statements, assertions and accusations.

Your assertion starting with "Don't dare accuse me" is a particular case in point:

1) I didn't "accuse" you of anything. Read what I wrote. Pause. Read it again. Think.

2) WP:AGF. If it upsets you, take a step back. You might be reading something into it that's not there.

3) Lose the aggressiveness. It not only achieves nothing, it tends to antagonise the reader.

As I have either said or implied previously, I wish to work productively WITH you. But you don't seem to be reciprocating. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By-the-way: I'm not seeking a response. Should you choose to make one, that's your choice. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attempt to take the moral high-ground when the suit doesn't fit. Timeshift (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Labor Party

I protected it due to an anticipated attack from an external website (will provide more detail if you're curious). Unprotected now. -- Pak aran 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Timeshift9. You have new messages at Pakaran's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Pak aran 04:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current pendulum for the next Australian federal election

Hi - while I agree with you that you cannot simply plonk Wright in on this one, would you object if I incorporated the redistribution changes, including Wright, Durack and McMahon, since the page does say it's for the next election? Frickeg (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I'll get to it in due course. Hang in there. Frickeg (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

offtopic

Have you seen this: article in The Age? Hilarious! --Surturz (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S.A. Current pendulum

Have you started work on a pendulum for the next S.A State election? I know it's early days but seats could possibly be arranged. Im about to go start work on the next QLD State election. Wikistar (Place order here) 09:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a point until results are final. And it won't be hard, just swapping seats and margins around. Timeshift (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Paul Lennon.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Paul Lennon.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, the image nazis are out again! :D Timeshift (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SA 2010 Election - Don Pegler

You're quite right. I think I was just impatient to see information added about the guy who will almost certainly be the member. Donama (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdness

Have a look at the booth results for Frome, noting that Solomontown and Risdon Vale are basically Port Pirie suburbs and Napperby's only just out of town. Seems Brock won about 80% of the vote in Port Pirie, and lost everywhere else (except Gladstone), although this seems to have been enough to carry the electorate. Orderinchaos 12:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Aliens always have a weirdness don't they? :P (Just a sarcastic joke). Bidgee (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Georganass.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Georganass.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. Hammersoft (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Georganass.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Georganass.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]