User talk:Frickeg/Archive 6
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 5||Archive 6||Archive 7|
- 1 Australian federal election, 1901
- 2 Jackie Trad
- 3 Wow!
- 4 A barnstar for you!
- 5 Melbourne state by-election, 2012 and Australian Christians
- 6 Colours and images in member list pages
- 7 Talkback
- 8 Sutherland Shire
- 9 Division of Boothby
- 10 Australian House of Reps and Senate
- 11 Talk Back
- 12 CDP/AC
- 13 User:Frickeg/Next election
- 14 Nomination for deletion of Template:Electorate result and Template:Electorate result summary
- 15 NT 2012 candidate list
- 16 Australian Labor Party (NSW)
- 17 Nomination for deletion of Template:Redistribution box party AU party
- 18 NOO
- 19 CLP
- 20 James Thomas Walker
- 21 GA nomination of Edward Pulsford
- 22 Full election results pages
- 23 Succession boxes
- 24 Charles Frost
- 25 Victorian local government
- 26 a few things
- 27 Young
- 28 Talk:Isobel Redmond#Birth date
- 29 Back?
- 30 Electorates
- 31 Honda CR85R Expert
- 32 Discussion about merging electorates/results pages
- 33 COI Patricia Petersen
- 34 wa upper house members
- 35 RfC:Infobox Road proposal
- 36 Order of election in upper house Vic seats
- 37 Michael Danby
- 38 Tasmanian Legislative Council
- 39 Fed Election Candidates 2013
- 40 can you help me?
- 41 Stanley Bruce FA Nomination
- 42 Robert Brown
- 43 RE: Senators
- 44 Ron Brown
- 45 SA
- 46 Results pages category
- 47 Jim Scott (Australian politician)
- 48 RE: Christopher Pyne
- 49 Font size
- 50 Party divisions/branches
- 51 Kew 1988
- 52 Discussion over your Senate tables
- 53 Based on the pages and times you're editing them...
- 54 Are you doing a candidates page as the WA Senate paper draw has been done?
- 55 Annabel Digance :)
- 56 Brandis
- 57 Reality
- 58 Tasmania '69
- 59 Big Sigh (Australian House of Representatives - again)
Errr, well, it might be kind of skating close to original research, use of unreliable social media, etc... but she mentioned it was her birthday on 25 April twice on Twitter, and the Courier Mail said she was 40 on 7 April, so I kind of worked it out from that. I'll remove it if you're not comfortable with it, I'm happy to wait for a firm independent source such as a parliamentary bio. --Canley (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I honestly never thought australian politics on wikipedia would develop to what it is today. It is now done federally, I wonder if wikipedia will ever reach the point of having an article for every state election, every state by-election, and every state MP. Timeshift (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|For your work on Australian politicians! Rosiestep (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)|
- I'll try to get something of value on these guys together this weekend. I remember having an attempt back when they were first registered with the AEC, but I had a lot of difficulty working out exactly what their relationship with the CDP was (they seem to be what used to be the Victorian branch of the CDP, with possibly several others, still affiliated with them somehow). Hopefully there's some more info around now, especially with this by-election in the works. (I had a look at the by-election page and fixed up the candidates table a little - it was listing candidates of the Democrats, Secular Party and SEP, none of which are registered in Victoria. I have noticed, though, that Antony has started listing unregistered parties in much the same way as registered ones, so this will be worth keeping an eye on in the future.) Frickeg (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Colours and images in member list pages
a) Why put the parentheses around "Sir"?
b) With "John McLeay, Sr." and "John McLeay, Jr.", it was clear they were two different people, and clear they were related. With your changes, this is no longer clear. Your thoughts?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi! After a brief note at WT:AUP (where I hardly ever get responses any more, so I didn't wait that long) I've been implementing these "Sirs" in the member lists. With regards to Boothby - I'm glad you brought that up! It was one of the only ones I trouble with. If you'd prefer to reinstate the "Sr" and "Jr", go ahead - I kind of hate using them because in an Australian context no one ever uses them to refer to themselves (Harry Jenkins and Bob Katter spring to mind), but sometimes I guess they're unavoidable. The (Sir) in brackets is generally the accepted way of saying that someone became a (in this case) knight during the period they were serving, so with McLeay he was knighted in 1962, midway through his term. It would be misleading to list him as "Sir John McLeay" (without brackets) because there was a substantial period where he was both plain "John McLeay" and the member for Boothby, if that makes sense. Frickeg (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- if that makes sense - Actually, it makes a lot of sense. (i.e. to clarify: Yes, "(Sir)" has its benefits.
- Like most Australians, I, too, think that "John McLeay, Sr." and "John McLeay, Jr." is an abomination, and no, I most certainly do not prefer it. But at the moment I can't think of anything better. Have you got any ideas for a better solution. (Pleeeeeze!) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- (I'll keep this all in one place.) I can never figure out why these people don't go with a different variation on their first name - why would you want to have exactly the same name your father used? Anyway, I notice the elder McLeay's page says he was sometimes called "Jack"; not sure about the younger one. The problem here is that often people when knighted reverted to the full version of their names (Ken/Sir Kenneth Anderson and Bob/Sir Robert Cotton are two examples). I did manage to deal with the two Alexander Downers this way (since the elder one seemed to use Sir Alec a bit), but with this one and the two Jenkinses and Katters (the two main other federal instances), I'm really not sure. I notice the younger McLeay has a middle name while the elder does not, but since he never would have called himself "John Elden McLeay" either it's really just exchanging problems. The Katters and the Jenkinses use what I think is a mildly better system in that only the elder one is called "Sr.", as they would probably be called in common parlance today even if they didn't use it at the time. Maybe that could work here? At least it's not as bad as all the Donald Camerons - no less than seven federal (and two state) politicians have had that name. At least they're all unrelated and have (mostly) different middle names. Frickeg (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- (I'll keep this all in one place.) - Yes please.
- Y'know, it's highly inconsiderate of these people not to think about how historians might distinguish them!
- (BTW: John Bonython is yet another example.)
- OK. I agree that "(Sir) John" and "John" is the least bad of the alternatives so far identified.
- Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Australian House of Reps and Senate
hello there and thank you for your message,
I moved the articles because the format is wrong. The name of the two houses according to the constitution does not have an adjective in its name nor a noun such as "of Australia". They are simply the Senate and the House of Representatives, that is the most correct term. Since there are a number of other chambers with that name, the country is added in brackets. However if the country was part of the correct name, then that would be a different matter. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice work! One thing though that I tend to change where I can, is the order of the states. I'm of the view that the order from top to bottom should be highest to lowest population. After all, NSW has far more of an electoral impact than NT. Just sayin' :) Timeshift (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Electorate result and Template:Electorate result summary have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
NT 2012 candidate list
Hey, nice work with the candidates table. Just wondering, is there a threshold for when a party gets its own column? First Nations have eight candidates and their own column, the ASP have five candidates and grouped with others. Timeshift (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just curious, thanks for explaining. I'm not too fussed either way. I must say i'm surprised that the Greens still aren't running with a full suite of candidates. Timeshift (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good to see the Libs actually bothered to field a full suite this time! Timeshift (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Australian Labor Party (NSW)
I didn't appreciate your removal of the work I did, or the other person's. Given the ambiguity of the page name in which you have taken an interest in, you could have been constructive towards what I tried to do and added another page, did something with disambiguations etc. Instead you just removed it. Not very welcoming or helpful to inexperienced wikipedia editor/s.
Template:Redistribution box party AU party has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
no that's not fair my purpose in that text was to amuse people like kids that have to go on wikipedia every day for research i mean come on undone that delete cause it just aint far to the younger generation of australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate399 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, my mistake, it is in the Senate that the CLP caucus with the Nats. The CLP go it alone in the HoR. But they are the CLP in both houses regardless. Timeshift (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
James Thomas Walker
GA nomination of Edward Pulsford
You've probably forgotten all about your GA nomination of this article, but I've completed the review now and placed it on hold for up to seven days pending a few small things that need to be clarified. You can find the review here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Full election results pages
Hey there. I was just wondering what is your opinion on the creation of full election results pages for each Australian state and federal election? I've been thinking about the task ahead for the state election project, and concluded that over a thousand new pages will need to be created for former electorates and their results. So to make things go along a bit faster, I was thinking that there could be 1 page per election with the results tables for all seats at that time. Then when that's finished, work on electorates and their results could proceed a bit easier. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought I'd give it a try as I think it gives some useful context - not just linking to their predecessors and successors, but clearly illustrated whether control of the seat changed as well when they came to power or left office. I'm not solid on it, though - I thought I'd seen it done that way somewhere else, but I just checked the US, Canada and UK and if it is I can't find it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll go back and take them out when I'm done with this batch of assignments. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Victorian local government
Any chance you could chip in with some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics? I have a dilemma with parties in updating the Victorian LGAs after their elections, am not sure to handle it, and thought you might have an idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
a few things
Hey there. A few things:
- I notice you've been updating some electoral districts' members lists (e.g. Pittwater, Goulburn). Don't forget to update the member lists on the results pages too.
- There seems to be a lot of em dashes too for some reason. Mmmm.
- In light of all this, do you think we should template seat results and member lists? Historical results are only listed once (on the results pages), so templating them is probably unnecessary. The most recent elections, and old by-elections, are listed twice (results and seat page for recent general elections, results and by-election page for old by-elections). Recent by-elections are mentioned three times (results page, seat page, and by-election page) and monitoring/syncing them is a nuisance. We should consider templating member lists and new results. The Canadians template a bit; an example of what I'm thinking of can be found here. Miracle Pen (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes we need it for the Talk:Jay_Weatherill#DOB and Talk:Isobel Redmond#Birth date. You once said it was from this Philiashasspots (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- In Ted Laurie, you've typoed the date of his retirement - might want to fix that while you've still got the actual date handy. :) The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
So I have to be a member of some cliques I've never even heard of in order to add content to Wikipedia in relation to articles that have been redlinked for years? OK, fine, I'll leave the electorates alone. Go ahead and delete everything I've done. Kerry (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Which group would I make this submission to? And how does one make it? Will you help me in this process? And in your experience of these groups, how many submissions of this nature succeed? I don't wish to waste my time if there is little prospect of success. By strange coincidence, I have just come from a keynote address by Sue Gardner (Exec Director of WMF) where she commented that one of the problems of attracting new editors into Wikipedia was of the unwillingness of the existing communities to renegotiate past consensus, so you can see why I might legitimately be skeptical. And saying you all really appreciate my work rings a bit hollow when the deletion of my precise dates has already begun (hardly a case of "no need to change anything until consensus is reached") and this morning there is the unsubstantiated allegation on my talk page that "nine of ten links you create [are] pointing to the wrong place", which seems a remarkable claim given I did check every link and disambiguated the link if it was pointing to the wrong place (being human, maybe I could have missed one here and there, but not 9 out of 10). Kerry (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, you raised concerns about the notability of this article. 5 years later, it's still unresolved. Could you look it over and see if you think it should be taken to AfD? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion about merging electorates/results pages
I just thought you would be interested in the discussion going on here. Someone is arguing that small electorate pages should be merged with their results pages. Its outcome would affect the whole state election project. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe Australianindi may be engaging in conflict of interest edits on Patricia Petersen. This user routinely adds material favourable to Petersen, removes material unfavourable to Petersen and the name seems to suggest a link to Petersen's unregistered party Australian Independents. I'm considering raising this at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard but am interested in your thoughts before proceeding. Robert Brockway (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
wa upper house members
Thanks for your correction - didnt realise upper house seats were kept till may - cheers sats 04:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
RfC:Infobox Road proposal
You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS
Order of election in upper house Vic seats
Hi -- I notice you've been removing Vic upper house election orders from their corresponding tables. Could you explain why you believe the election order info is unneccesary? I find the election order historically notable and generally useful. Australian Matt (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The current profile of Danby reads like something you would expect to find prepared by his staff and published on his web site. There is another side to him and it has been revealed in public on many occasions. Just going through the history of the page you can see that various things have been removed due to a lack of sources. The comments I've added all have sources and they should stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alp watcher (talk • contribs) 07:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You can find various examples of Danby using Parliamentary Privilege to defame people, for example, some journalists he doesn't like. The Lee Rhiannon comments fit into this abusive pattern of behavior, so maybe it is not just targetted at women, but it is a kind of bullying and it appears to be part of his character. In that link, Crikey asks "is this the most vicioustirade by a pollie against a journo ever?" If you feel there is a better way to represent this aspect of his character or can give examples of how it has been done for other articles that would be helpful.
As for the case where he successfully used defamation proceedings, I am aware of the more detailed claims against him but I declined to include the details as I felt that doing so might cross some threshold where it causes controversy for Wikipedia. Nonetheless, it is widely known that he pursued a defamation case against the press and this has implications for press freedom (and even Wikipedia itself). Alp watcher (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Tasmanian Legislative Council
Thank you. It's a pleasure to do this work. As for the Tasmanian Upper House, I'll have to have a look at the book in my uni library on Tuesday. If it covers Tasmanian elections, it should have the results and parties up to 1984. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I had a look, but unfortunately Colin Hughes' book doesn't mention the parties for Tas LC elections. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Fed Election Candidates 2013
Maybe this election will be the catalyst for abolishing Group Ticket Voting and institute a decent level of electoral deposits. Among other things, it may help put Druery out of business. That in itself will be something--Mrodowicz (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Nice work! My complements - and you managed to do it very quickly under the circumstances. It would have taken me ages to do. I reckon you can get some sleep now - enough with elections for the day? --Mrodowicz (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
can you help me?
If you can help me sum up each Aussie political party, that be a big help. Don't delete any of them though because while some aren't cited yet, I'm working on that.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you please restore my group section please, Groups and Parties are similar but ARE NOT THE SAME! The Nick X Group will be dead after this election, and even if reelected, we will not see it for another 6 years, after the next election in 2016. I think if we need to have it mentioned at all (which I don't cuz it's so temporary, a new page sure, but not in a list for POLITICAL PARTIES), it needs to be separated and the term group explained, which I admit I need help with. So lets either do it right, or kill it altogether, ok?--126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Forgive my snapping, I'm buggered after working on this for days and having stuff I did a day ago be deleted is very upsetting, especially after one has donated money to wiki.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I can show you an article with all the groups/parties preferences in every state. There are a lot more than just the Nick X group, and not all of then are on the AEC reg. Is it far to leave them unrep on this page?--184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I paid for wiki bills, imho they can stuff that rule. Anyway, fair enough, then I'll make a new page about it and have it linked to the party one with examples from this election. Fair?
But I refuse to do a description for Nick X, got nothing against him but I do take the use of names of parties and groups very seriously (though silly, he could have done what other parties have done and put his name as a party or a party name like "4change" or something).
As for my descriptions, I agree they are too long, I did it for the election but afterwards (or before, whatever works) if they are shorten, that's great news. Just be careful cuz certain bits I think are relevant, and I will restore them (with cites if I haven't already).--220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep an eye out for defunct parties on the current parties pages. A lot of them have been sadly missed by other editors and have so far failed to make it on the defunct section of that page. The pages on ACT elections is full of them, and will be my next target among others. I should have an old wiki account under the name "KangaKucha" but I prefer to work like this because of abuse I got in the past.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't have defunct parties that aren't cited in anyway save being on an election roll be at least listed so that a user can take up the fight to give it more info. All they need is a push.
That's a rule I don't agree with cuz honestly the best people to cite something are those involved, not someone that is on the outside but reports on it. It prevents members of parties for saying anything, even if unbias and just informative, and that's just not fair imho and needs to be changed.
Fine, three pages, active parties, defunct parties, and a page that describes Groups and lists examples but not all groups that ever existed (which would be unworkable as you have to list all independents).--22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hope this holds or at least my efforts are added to the right page and that page is properly cited on the main political party page. I'll cover a page for defunct parties tommorow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Groups_(Australia) --126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Stanley Bruce FA Nomination
You seem to be a very knowledgeable and active Wikipedian interested in Australian pages. I'm sort of new to substantive work on Wikipedia, but have worked quite hard on the Stanley Bruce over the past months, and you were good enough to help edit it a little while back. Well its now been through a fair bit of peer review to get GA status and now to try and get to FA status, and it is almost there but its nomination to FA status just needs a few more supporting voice to get it over the line. If you had the time and wanted to have a look over it and add your support, or review/criticism if it needs more work, I'd really appreciate it! Thanks heaps, Unus Multorum (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds like he probably died before 1992, when Hansard started being published online, so it might well have to be the stacks. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Results pages category
I moved this article per your technical request at WP:RMTR. I updated the reference link to his parliamentary biography, which no longer worked due to a website redesign. The VIAF link does not go anywhere useful -- it fans out to a collection of different Jim Scotts, one of whom published a work on butterflies with a nice cover. Perhaps somebody knows how to fix such ambiguities. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
RE: Christopher Pyne
Hi. I think (and it is quite a while ago) that I meant to state that he (Pyne) was the youngest MP-elect when he won for Sturt in 1993. No, he didn't make the claim himself. Whatever may be wrong, please, by all means, make any corrections needed. I'll redo my research now. Thanks for letting me know. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I came across these on a cursory Google search:
2) “starting out as its youngest member in 1993” (per http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/political-fixers/christopher-pyne)
Yours, Quis separabit? 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Anyway, thanks so much for the insights. Pyne is only the tenth youngest, huh??!! Wow. Quis separabit? 00:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Frickeg. Just wondering why you want smaller font? Wikitable is the standard table for Wikipedia and the font size is hard-coded, presumably for accessibility issues (i.e. those with poor eyesight like myself, who struggle to read even slightly smaller text). Is it causing any problems? Cheers, Number 57 19:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. It may not appear so due to the font size, but the tables are actually smaller than they were - the original coding also expanded the row height beyond the standard (the coding had the overall effect of shrinking the text but making rows deeper). I've put a comparison of the two here - the Wikitable style box is 16px smaller than the original one if you measure them side-by-side. Cheers, Number 57 23:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't actually, I just seem to recall a consistency from things ive come across that the ALP uses branch and Libs use division as a seperate to the name, ie: "Australian Labor Party (State of Queensland) - Queensland branch" or some such. Timeshift (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I do think the potential for the older 'list' would be great if it was worked upon, I just couldnt believe the crap that got inserted could stand untouched or uncommented about for so long.
I am disappointed the conversation continues at AWNB, I am sure it needs to buried at the politics talk page, and we move on. I still think a separate easy access list of current registered parties is still a valid idea. Keep up the good work, I amazed how much haerd work has gone into the politics articles... satusuro 09:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey dont put it onto yourself, my apologies if I was a bit strident earlier today about the crap etc, yeah, there is only so much we can do in the time we have. I have no problem with the new list potentially being a redirect if the old list is cleaned up sufficiently, it has brilliant potential. I do hope my comments at AWNB havent been too disparaging of the list per se. It was the content that bothered me. cheers satusuro 09:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yup - hey keep up the hard work, and if I descend on some politics pages with the dmy and engvar hidden, I hope I dont light up your watch list like a christmas tree or somehting worse... satusuro 09:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have a copy of the 1985 and 1988 VEC statistics so the byelection results were there. I've added the results into the Kew results page.
Discussion over your Senate tables
Based on the pages and times you're editing them...
You've decided that you can't go without looking through two weeks of watchlist, but it's too much in one go. Slowly over a period of days you're going through earliest to latest. Correct? ;) Timeshift (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you doing a candidates page as the WA Senate paper draw has been done?
FYI (copied from User talk:Surturz
- (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)
- Hi! I'm just a little bit surprised by your post on my talk page. I really don't understand why you expect that I care about Timeshift's opinion - quite clearly, Timeshift doesn't care about any opinion that that doesn't identically match his own opinion. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's kind of hard to reply to you when you delete the section from your talk page - I disagree. It doesn't seem to have slowed you down at all. Note: The title of this section is "Reality". A major difference between my attempts to conversations with the average wikipedian and you is that, in my opinion, I can have a sensible conversation with you. (i.e. Not wishing to be sycophantic, but to be unambiguous, I feel I can have a sensible conversation with you.)
- I don't care in the slightest about your little feud with Timeshift - Just to clarify, neither do I. But to further clarify to you, (as I have to him, several times), I am NOT going to let him steamroller me.
- but he's asked you to stay off his page. He's entitled to do that - Yeah, and I'm entitled to ignore him.
- and you're obliged to comply, otherwise he's well within his right to take you to ANI - Where his narrowminded bigotry and failure to engage in discussion will be highlighted ... etc.
- My only interest in this is that I think you're both productive editors and I think you both have better things to do with your time, so just stay off his talkpage.' - Well thanks. I appreciate your sentiments. However, while he continues to be an arrogant WP:Dick, I see no reason why ANYONE on WP should be forced to be subjugated by his arrogance. WP is SUPPOSED to be about consensus, not about Timeshift's arrogance.
- And just to clarify, this is NOT aimed at you. This is an attempt to explain things to you. I realize that this is NOT your problem, but, as I respect your opinion, it is important to me that I explain to you why I feel Timeshift is a "loose cannon".
- Further, I'll point out to you that there are SEVERAL other wikipedians, (not just me), who think his behaviour is unacceptable, and like me, are discouraged that sensible editors like your allow him to continue.
- I'm more than happy to engage in further conversation via email. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, all fine. Frickeg (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
In case you thought otherwise, I thought I'd explicitly point out that it seems to me that you and I have pretty much the same opinion on this latest discussion. Thanks for taking the "good cop" role. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. About the Centre party issue, I think it should be treated as a separate party to the Country party of 1964. While in the party article it states it was supported by former Country members, that such a big change was made from the name of the party that was not replicated in any other state, and resulted in a change of government, it should be treated as a new party. Also, the Labor (Anti-communist) issue. Since in the parliamentary library it says Democratic Labor, not L(A-C), that should reflect it too. I'll change the table shortly. Thanks for raising it. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Big Sigh (Australian House of Representatives - again)
- 16:55, 27 May 2014 Pdfpdf . . (Undid revision Andreas11213) - No. You haven't. Two people have shown interest - NO-ONE has said "Yes, lets do it.")
- 11:16, 27 May 2014 Andreas11213 . . (I have received consensus on the talk page to do this)
- 17:34, 19 May 2014 Frickeg . . (Reverted 1 edit by Andreas11213: I actually support this version, but consensus needs to come FIRST. You have had this particular version on the talk page for less than a day. Just wait. (TW))