User talk:Skyring

Please comment on Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scranton General Strike

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scranton General Strike. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Shorten's moobs make the election campaign trail!

I read this and immediately thought of you! It's not exactly earwax-level but it's still in that same area of electoral trash trivia! ;) Timeshift (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Timeshift! As per your thoughtful suggestion, I have commenced a discussion on Shorten's talk page. In this campaign, parliamentary pairs could be a huge issue. --Pete (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

SEXISM! Parliamentary Pairs lol Timeshift (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Your Trumpinion? Dare I ask? A one sentence reply is sufficient :) Timeshift (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the commonality amongst your trash election trivia fetish is that it always involves a part of the male body... speaks volumes Pete, really does :D Timeshift (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, who pushed this onto me?

File:Reading Times in Tehran.jpg

Speaking of Trumpinions, I was recently in a place where I would have been very interested to hear the opinions of the official media. Although the matter of a nation's head of state is a matter for the citizens of that nation, it is also one of interest to other nations sharing a relationship. I suspect that a few hardliners would be delighted to see Trump get up. Most, less so. Sadly, this particular paper had more interest in the football. I was out on the streets the previous evening, and there was raucous rejoicing over some local team triumphing. The media needs to get its priorities right.

On Trump, I heard an opinion the other day which I think describes the situation aptly. Newspapers and other media aren't really in the business of informing their readership. They want to entertain them, to get the audience coming back for more and in the process paying their bills.

Trump is by far the most entertaining candidate, and that's why he has been in the news since day one. He's been getting enormous free publicity, and that seems to be what wins these things. All I've heard for a while has been the sound of pundits eating their sour grapes, because not one of them thought Trump would make it this far.

None of the Republican candidates have been particularly palatable. Not to me, anyway. I like John McCain, but his star faded. For Trump to be the GOP nominee, well, it's appalling, but I doubt in the actual election he'll do anything much more than attract the votes of middle-aged white men with a keen interest in racism. A big market segment in the US, to be sure, but I'm betting that there are so many other voters who are very anxious about Trump that it will be a drover's dog moment for the Democrats, and a lot of people will queue up just to vote for the Dem candidate, whoever she might be, just to ensure Trump doesn't get the naming rights to the White House. --Pete (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Trump only goes up in the polls when he always does something that should ruin him makes him potentially very dangerous. History is littered with global examples. I don't think many Americans have got that far yet. Timeshift (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of images, what do you think of the pearler I spotted and enhanced and now sits as Malcolm Turnbull's main image? Such striking eyes, oh the things they must have seen over the years! It's almost too good! Potentially the pinnacle image of a long wiki career! ;) Timeshift (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I liked this one better. That expression. Love to know what was passing through his mind. "Did I just sit down on someone's meat pie?" perhaps. --Pete (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

... why? Even if for nothing else, you can prevent regular article talk requests for a 'smiling' photo? The photo you link to is a good one but not 'infobox appropriate' like the current one clearly is. Timeshift (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

His expression is entertaining. Looking at the last poll, the candidates all seem to miss the mark. Given the amount of photographs of these people, you'd think it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a good one. We were very lucky with Abbott and Gillard - two corkers on one night! --Pete (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"DOCTORS are turning prescriptions into an election campaign weapon as they ramp up their opposition to the government’s six year freeze on Medicare rebates. Patients could end up paying between $14 and $38 to see a GP as a result of the freeze announced in last week’s budget and doctors are printing a message about the cuts on every prescription they write. The message: “Danger: You and your family’s health is being targeted” is being printed on the bottom of electronic prescriptions by doctors engaged in the campaign. More than 5.5 million prescriptions are written every week making the printable message a potent campaign weapon."[1] - damn thats gonna be powerful... wonder what % of doctors. Libs bridge-burnt one too many? Eight-week campaign period... never understood his choice. Timeshift (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Trying to be clever with the DD and the new Senate system, which I note the HC has just upheld. Plus he can call a joint sitting on a bill or two if need be. Squeaking it into July keeps the Senate/House cycle in balance. Or something. On the medical thing, well, I dunno. It just demonstrates that the doctors have been steadily lifting their fees. Which of course has the effect of patients paying more. --Pete (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Chicken or the egg. Timeshift (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Bob Day - was never a chance, was always just a profile-building exercise. Timeshift (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Shorten Moobs.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Shorten Moobs.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item 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 creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media 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 the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Reading Times in Tehran.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Reading Times in Tehran.jpg, which you've attributed to "someone". I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)