User talk:Timeshift9

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

Welcome to my talk page, where you are welcome to leave a message at the bottom of this page for any reason at all and I will attempt to respond ASAP. If you leave a message here, I will most likely reply here.

3,800 watchlist articles and counting :)

There is no cabal. Mmmm, cabal....

SA[edit]

You must be happy! What a shocker for the Liberals, even if they do scrape together a minority government. Meanwhile I'm just crossing my fingers that Annabel Digance definitely wins Elder, because then we can have an article on her. (It's sad, but that is a significant factor in how much I want individual candidates to win now - blue links in previous election articles. It has softened the blow of many a recent Coalition landslide. It's also why I'm pulling for Madeleine Ogilvie from amongst that unpalatable bunch of Labor types still in the running in Denison.) Frickeg (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh i'm very happy, I was expecting the Libs to easily win a majority a week ago. I'm again shocked with seats like Light and Mawson, but they do have good local members. I don't think the Libs will scrape together a minority govt. I think the final result will be 23 Labor, 22 Liberal, 2 Independent. Brock will go through the motions but end up supporting Labor. Who knows what Such will do, but he's been Speaker under Labor before and he could do so again. And considering how the SA Libs did their scorched earth tactic in independent seats, i'd say the indies wouldn't be liking the Libs a whole lot at the moment. It will also inherantly be a more stable minority government by Labor relying on one independent than the Libs relying on two, esp Brock. But even if the Libs do somehow scrape together a minority govt, it will be hilarious after how the Libs have treated minority governments like the devil. SA did it easily in 2002 and we can do it again. And yes, I like Digance too, and she's won. A current swing of just 0.1 against her to still be on 51.9 2pp, she's home and hosed. "You can't trust Habib" over council funding cuts vs Lindsay pamphlet scandal... seriously, glass houses. Except for Cory Bernardi, for once in his life. My favourite quote of the election night goes to Xenophon... "The Libs fought this as though it was a game of lawn bowls". :D Also amused at how many minor/micro upper house candidates talked themselves up massively but failed abysmally. Collectively, the non-parliamentary party vote got slashed by a quarter. I call it the Druery factor, people waking up to funky ATL pref flows and avoiding them like the plague :) I expect the same pattern at the WA Senate election. Timeshift (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I was pretty happy with the LC result as well - pretty much status quo, except Bressington's seat going to the Libs. Very glad no micros got up; slightly bemused so many people really think John Darley is going to serve a full term, but maybe they trust Xenophon to choose someone decent (to which I say: Ann Bressington, Exhibit A. At least she's gone). Also interesting to see Palmer doing so badly both there and in Tas (not to mention Katter, who may as well merge with PUP right now). Frickeg (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
At one point, Druery's magic almost got the Shooters and Fishers over the line, but that was erased as counting continued. Bressington was like a Lib anyway, so definately status quo. And PUP was always going to go downhill after the 2013 fed election. But he'll retain his seat at the next election even though he doesn't show up to parliament... only in that wacky state of QLD! Timeshift (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

So Marshall is claiming a clear first preference majority with 44.3%. Interesting definition of a "clear majority". Djapa Owen (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Abbott says the party with the 2pp majority has the right to govern a hung parliament! lol! Timeshift (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
So nice to know that the outcome of the 2010 federal hung parliament met with Abbott's approval. Either way, an indictment of the Libs' suburban Adelaide campaigns and candidate selections. Not to mention Bignell and Piccolo - they remind me of Peter Watson in WA, defying the trend every time. Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Annabel Digance :) And she's gone from a -0.1% swing to a +0.4% swing. Fancy that, Labor increasing their post-election-night vote ;) Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yay. And look at all those lovely blue links. :) Frickeg (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Adelaide meetup[edit]

Hi Timeshift9, I've just suggested a date for the next WP Adelaide Meetup. Pdfpdf does come along to these events, and he's not a bad chap, really, once you get to know him. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bahudhara, thanks for the offer, and i'm sure Pdfpdf is nice in person, but i'll pass thankyou :) Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

SA Election Results[edit]

I would have included the 2pp vote as well as the 2cp vote for those seats, but I can't seem to find them anywhere. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll find Heysen here however for Fisher, Frome and Mt Gambier, just insert 2PP with the percentage only from here until the individual vote numbers are released by the ECSA. Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've got the script working to output the results tables, and I'm just tweaking the 2CP part... Should the swing be from Antony Green's notional margin calculations, or ECSA's or just last election's margins? I was presuming the ABC ones re: the discussion on the talk page. I'm not sure what the usual arrangement is for SA. I've got all three sets of margins so no problem to change them around if needed. --Canley (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I'd go with Antony's. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox on WA Senate election page[edit]

Hi Timeshift I saw you reverted my addition of the Infobox at Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014. You said that because it's not a House election an Infobox is not required. I'm not sure why you say this? What is the precedent for this? Thanks LordFixit (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Australian Senate election, 1970 and the other 3 Senate-only elections. If you want to include it then you can gain consensus on the article's talkpage for your disputed change. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

New proposal at Talk:Independent (politician)#Requested move[edit]

The proposed move of Independent (politician) has been altered to the new title of Political independent. This notice is in case you would like to review your !vote. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Random question[edit]

To someone who knows a lot more about SA politics than I do: regarding this story, I never realised (or registered) that Russell Wortley was in the Right. Because I remember Dana being in the Hard Left with all the Makin/Senate stuff in 2004. Are they really from different factions, or did one or both of them switch at some point? Has anyone ever addressed it? Frickeg (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure sorry. Timeshift (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
This article in Green Left Weekly from 1994 mentions a split in the SA Labor left faction, with the new left faction, the Progressive Labour Alliance, being led by Russell Wortley. So he does seem to have switched at some point. --Canley (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Better source request for File:JosephCook4.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

re your comment[edit]

Re: [1], if that so, they should be asked to abide by WP:NPA Face-wink.svg. This constant edit warring from that user is starting to get pretty tedious, and they've already been warned numerous times not to do it, but they just can't help themselves. —MelbourneStartalk 08:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here. Timeshift (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
That's absurd. Why this user is taking this too seriously in the sense that they have to label other editors "extremist" is baffling. They should look at their own editing, and what cause they're eagerly pushing in articles, before judging others. And stop edit warring too. Very counter-productive... considering that I'm sure they have good intentions, but they're ruining those intentions by carrying on like this. Learning the hard way must work, I suppose. —MelbourneStartalk 08:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I doubt it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Heads up. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(Hmmm. It would appear that the block has made any "perceived urgency" somewhat academic ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC))

Party/MP[edit]

Regarding the stuff about MHS, I've started something at WT:AUP. I've been noticing that we have differing views on how to deal with this for years; it's about time we hashed it out! Frickeg (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

I've blocked you for this edit, which is attempted outing. Graham87 15:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No, not Timeshift! --Pete (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't think. Indeed I should not have said what I said and for that I apologise to Philiashasspots. Graham87, considering my long-changed, very long-term good behaviour, can I please request I be unblocked and on thin ice? Timeshift (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Timeshift, how about you email me and we can meet offline to satisfy your curiosity about my identity. Assuming you have nothing to hide yourself. Philiashasspots (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
No thankyou. Unlike some, I certainly don't have a style of editing that would make anyone think I have something to hide. How many Labor MP images have you uploaded? I've done quite a few Liberal MPs over the years. And tons of historical stuff that would be irrelevant to someone with a barrow to push. Not to mention i've known an unnamed admin for years and years who knows for a fact I have nothing to hide, though I won't mention them for their sake, though i'm sure many users would know who i'm referring to. Anywho, the point i'm making is, please don't infer things, which aren't true, without even an ounce of evidence. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
How do you get your Liberal and Labor MP images? Philiashasspots (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you have a look? Flickr and US govt sites mostly. Like most wiki users. Any more questions? :) Timeshift (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm I've never used Flickr. Are you saying I have a style of editing that makes everyone think I have something to hide? I lost interest in adding photos after the hoops I had to jump through. I lost interest in editing wikipedia and fighting other editors who challenged my good-faith edits and hid their bias behind the wikipedia rules. Many South Australian wikipedia pages are in a poor state and lack content (because of deletionists) I tried contributing but .... whatever .... Philiashasspots (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
What, you've never looked at this or this or this amongst many others? And yes, i'm saying you have a style of editing that looks sus. Two images to commons, Marshall and Hamilton-Smith, with image licenses that stick out like a sore foot. As for the rest of your post, i'm not sure if you're trying to bait or you're just frustrated, but many users have contributed to SA politics over a long period of time which has culminated in the most expansive freely available collection of information on the internet. Deletionists never win because consensus will always defeat it. Of course, let's not confuse deletionism with following wikipedia policies. Looking through your contribs I particularly like this edit with a summary of "Answered Collect, Mkativerata, Kevin, Timeshift9 and Rrius" and on the page you say "have some non-biased people take a look"... yes, we're all biased and wrong and you're singularly unbiased and right, and without a WP:COI! *scoff* Timeshift (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I said I have not looked at Flickr. I added the Marshall pic after he was made leader and his page had no image of him. I explained it all back then. The Libs would not give me the image until Confidential in the Advertiser did a short bit on Marshalls headless Wikipedia page or something. Then after you deleted the image I had to get them to license the image publicly and it wasted my time and irritated me. My point about the SA politics articles is they are very heavy in what I consider useless "statistic facts" that most SA politics editors love. I don't think the general public and wikipedia readers give a damn about all the stats and swings and polls. A lot of biographical facts are not being added to Labor politicians articles because of general editor bias to the left of SA politics and using the wikipedia rules. Where-as biographical dirt on Liberal SA politicians is done and ignoring the wikipedia rules. I'm a swinging voter with a bias towards the right. I've voted labor before in SA. No-one pays me. No one pulls my strings or tells me what to do. Yes I believe you all are biased when it comes to certain things and I am biased in the opposite direction. The wikipedia rules are not being applied evenly and consistently. Why isn't there a page on the "Saint Clare Land Swap Deal", "Dodgy-gate", "Stashed cash affair", etc? I have contempt for most politicians. Still not sure what WP:COI you are referring to. Philiashasspots (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
You asked where I got my images from, and I told you, and pointed out that it should be obvious where they are sourced based on the image information. It's how the average wikipedian tends to source images. I'm sorry that following image use guidelines came across to you as time wasting and irritating. And your biographical facts, like the example I pointed out above, were not covered in WP:RS, just unsubstantiated court documents, which if included violates WP:BLP. I never said the Liberals pay you or pull your strings or tell you what to do. I'm sorry you seem to think we're all biased towards the left but that's just your unsubstantiated opinion. Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm just tiring of your unprovoked unsubstantiated allegations that I have a WP:COI. Are this and this and this enough of a WP:RS to add a sentence to Jay Weatherill's article? I was going to last year but could not be bothered with all the fighting I knew it would cause. Philiashasspots (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
That's funny, you accuse me of unsubstantiated allegations and then that's precisely what your linked articles are!! :D Why don't you bring it up on Weatherill's talk page and see where discussion takes it? If you're not prepared to discuss if you can't "be bothered with all the fighting I knew it would cause" as you put it, then perhaps wikipedia is not the place for you. Just sayin'. Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you actually read the 3 linked articles or just scoff because it was from the Australian or Advertiser? I would not call them unsubstantiated or vexatious allegations. The case is still before the tribunal and a related case the Full Court of the Supreme Court. I'll discuss it on the Weatherill's talk page in due course. Philiashasspots (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
No I didn't "just scoff because it was from the Australian or Advertiser". Just because they are less than reliable sources at times, doesn't mean they can never be used as a reference - heck, I use them for references. But these articles - first article uses "accused". Second article "claimed". Third article "allegation". Is this covered is any non News Ltd sources? Please raise it on the Weatherill page. If other editors were to disagree I wouldn't complain, but these sorts of accusations are a dime a dozen until proven otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It was covered by Today Tonight here. I also use the Australian and Advertiser for references. I might raise it on the Weatherill talk page soon. Philiashasspots (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
HAHAHA Today Tonight!! Talk about an own goal there! Word of advice: the only thing worse than using News Ltd is using Today Tonight. You're almost asking everyone to dismiss it simply by referring to Today Tonight! Gold! :D Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 :-) I was just answering your question about if it was covered anywhere else :-) I got the reaction I expected :-) Philiashasspots (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh good, i'm glad you weren't serious. That was a close one! Timeshift (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Graham87. As per outing guidelines, you may wish to delete what I put on Philiashasspots's talkpage. Timeshift (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I've redacted the text and requested oversight on the offending revisions. Graham87 04:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

By-elections[edit]

Thanks! That was me taking advantage of one of those rare times when I have the motivation to absolutely plough through something these days. Most of them are the stubbiest of stubs, though; I'd love to expand them properly some day, but the vast majority would have very, very few sources. How do you mean with the links in the MP articles? I know I used to put redlinks in the MPs' articles I wrote, generally. Still the states to do, of course. (It never ends, does it?) Frickeg (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh. Sounds daunting. Good luck, though! Frickeg (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Not really. If I ever got the time and sources to really expand some of the historical MP articles, then maybe. Frickeg (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts[edit]

The more I think about a certain difficult editor we both know well, the more I am drawn to this definition:

"Asperger syndrome...is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction..., alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development." (My bolding, of course.)

That I see this as an appropriate label makes it difficult to publicly discuss the person involved, hence my reluctance to leap in.

I'm not sure where we can take this. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I like his userpage. It's as if he's telling us what we don't already know, ha! Timeshift (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at it for the first time. Amazing. It fit's my hypothesis well. Very narrow perspective, and completely obsessive within it. And at least it's a more honest User page than those of some other POV pushers here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Very. Timeshift (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Queen of the Whitehouse[edit]

I'm afraid I'm getting far too much immoral pleasure from the discussion referenced at Talk:Tony Abbott#Frances Abbott, Queen of the Whitehouse. It's no good for my soul. I'd appreciate the input of somebody like yourself who has no such scruples. --Pete (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you have noticed or not, but I avoid editing Tony Abbott like the plague. There's a whole lot of cooks and very little broth. If I want to bang my head against a brick wall, there are many less odorous ones available. Timeshift (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I thought of you because you'd have a more open position than what I'm perceived to have, and you know your wikistuff backwards. FWIW, I'm less than impressed with TA. Increasing the gap between rich and poor, moving in the direction of the US in social structure, failing to honour election commitments, cronyism and so on. We need good honest community-minded politicians and there seems to be very few around. Jed Bartlett, maybe. --Pete (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
So you have a conscience after all. More than can be said for most neo-liberals :) But yet i'm sure somehow, by next election, you'll still vote for the Coalition. Timeshift (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I always vote independent, and I rank the sitting member last. --Pete (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Considering you live in Canberra i'm sure that comes very easy to you. My point stands :) Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I mix it up with the Senate and local government ballots. Love the ACT system. Be interesting to see how the microparty issue is handled. I'm guessing that the preferred approach will be to toughen things up for the small parties and keep above-the-line voting. My preference would be make it optional preferential - stop numbering when you run out of candidates you actually like. --Pete (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Look, a unicorn! You know, parliament is fascinating when the entire Coalition acts as though they were rusted-on Hawke/Keating voters :) Timeshift (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

FYI, I've done a dummy spit (or two). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It being past 2AM ...[edit]

... I'm very disappointed that you have not responded in support of my personal prejudices. What can I say? "C'est la vie"? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(P.S. Don't get too worried - I'm sure I'll survive. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC) )

... ok. Timeshift (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Rotfl! (Deservedly, you leave me speechless!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul Keating[edit]

Yeah, I'd noticed - was trying to reply but kept winding up in edit conflict hell.

I think the editor's just trolling for the lulz at this point. People don't act like that if they've got an actual content issue, even if it's a silly content issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

People get annoyed if other people refuse to assume good faith, refuse to explain their reverts, refuse to engage in a discussion that they themselves demanded. And your moronic claims, twice made, that you "couldn't understand" what I was saying, were the most productive input you could come up with, apparently. Reading the arguments and responding to them was all too much. And you wonder why someone might get annoyed with you. 187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, several people vs you, and i'm the problem. Bwahahahaha! Timeshift (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

9 reverts in an hour, and counting. Sheesh. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Be careful, as technically in stopping one person with a few others you technically violated 3RR too. Just be mindful :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I vehemently dispute that. I did not canvass any person to revert. If it's wrong it's wrong. Perhaps it wouldn't have taken several users if the IP didn't revert 10 times in an hour? Timeshift (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I know it was done in good faith in dealing with a disruptive user, but unless the content you revert is clear vandalism, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Not warning you or anything of that nature, just politely pointing out to be careful. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: Not saying any sort of canvasing went on I know the whole group was trying to stop the disruptive user. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Re-read what you said... I think you misread material for users. Timeshift (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:187.17.52.174[edit]

I noticed you and IP User:187.17.52.174 are in a bit of a clash on his page. User talk:187.17.52.174 keeps blanking his talk page. Backendgaming (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not fussed if he blanks his talkpage. His behaviour speaks for itself. Timeshift (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of tension between you and the IP. Report this guy if it gets out of hand. Backendgaming (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

He's been blocked once and will likely be blocked again if he keeps up his behaviour. Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Middle names etc.[edit]

I get them from all sorts of places. I used to get a lot from the Who's Who, but I don't have instant access anymore and they're really bad about updating lately anyway. A good place for middle names is the Hansard, which usually has a list of members with full names at the start of every edition, regardless of state. Speirs's middle name is James. (That was actually me, btw, a while back, but it may have got mixed up in the IP's edits.) Birth dates are trickier and I'm beginning to despair for a lot of the current ones since they just don't list them anymore - even the states I used to be able to rely on, like Queensland, have a big chunk they just never get around to listing. SA used to have the birth years at least in the Electoral Commission's reports on the election, but they didn't do that for 2010 and I doubt they will for 2014 either. Frickeg (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a reference for Speirs' middle name here. He was also born in Scotland in around 1985. --Canley (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, they include all the full names on the return of the election writ (as Frickeg refers to above): [2]. --Canley (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Just colour me...[edit]

...thoughtless. My apologies. --Pete (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Confused[edit]

Regarding the deletion of File:David Speirs.jpg, I've followed the steps layed out by the Wikipedia:Image use policy and cannot see how I'm supposed to change the source information if it is all properly entered following the steps Wikipedia has in place to upload images. I have been given this file to me by David Speirs and have also been given all rights to use it. I do not understand what you want me to do to stop the deletion of this file. Arixp (talk) 23:56, 02 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? You suddenly think after removing this on your talk page without reason or explanation that i'd be suddenly willing to help you without even so much as a sorry? I'll give you one hint and it's more than you deserve - you cannot say that permission will be provided upon request, it must be provided for all to see. Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Bob Day picture[edit]

You removed a picture I uploaded. You said images on aph.gov.au are not Creative Commons. But the copyright info tab on the aph.gov,au website says it is. Specifically it says:-

"With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and where otherwise noted, all material presented on this website is provided under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence."

http://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Disclaimer_Privacy_Copyright#c

Please reinstate the picture.

Terjepetersen (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Non commercial no deriv. Learn creative commons licensing. Timeshift (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

New articles[edit]

These are at User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult. Somebody's got to put them in some order.--Grahame (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for your opinion[edit]

We often disagree, hence it would seem to me that you are a good person to find the holes in my ideas.

I have in mind that I'd like to create an article along the lines of List of owners of so-called "Australian icons"
(Yeah, it's a really bad page name - but that can be addressed ... )

It would contain things like:

  • Vegemite - Kraft (Swiss)
  • Fosters - xxxx (South African)
  • Farmer's Union Iced Coffee - Kirin (Japanese)

and

  • Coopers (SA Family owned)
  • Bickfords Australia (SA Family owned)

and

  • AMSCOL - defunct

etc.

What do you think?
Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest/opinion. Timeshift (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh.
Oh well, thanks for replying.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

NSW by-elections[edit]

Ha! You pipped me by 30 seconds to updating the articles about the Liberals not contesting! Were you watching Insiders? --Canley (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I am :D (Gerard Henderson on two weeks in a row, ugh) Then went to news.google for the cite :) (I could only find the one ref) As if they're not contesting either by-election! When was the last time an incumbent party didn't contest a by-election? Poor Surtzy must be reeling. Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Bahahaha @ Henderson and Marr's on-screen tiff that just happened. Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about state-level, but I bet it's a long, long time. Federally it's only happened once, the Wide Bay by-election, 1928. I assume there has to be some sort of backstory there (especially given it was a father succeeding a son), but I've never got around to digging it up. Frickeg (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't count it when one conservative party succeeds another... As far as NSW goes, Antony said "Newcastle and Charlestown by-elections are first in NSW since 1906 not re-contested by holding party". Timeshift (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition[edit]

Hi I in this edit you left this message in the edit summary, "(stop it The Tepes. I've already told you.)" I just wanted to know what you were talking about? Cheers.

If you look at my edit that accompanied that edit summary, it would show you I removed a copyrighted non-free image of Hewson. Timeshift (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh that. That wasn't my image. Someone else uploaded that to Hewson's page, I assumed since it was on the page there were no copy right issues, so naturally I added it to relevant pages. I was wondering why you called me out. Cheers The Tepes (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Such[edit]

I was going off this ABC article, which says that he'd died the day before. It sounds like your source may be better and the ABC may be wrong though? The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your total reversion of my edits of the Electoral district of Fisher[edit]

I always edit with the general reader as my audience. I amended the entry because second paragraph was a 20-line-long unbroken slab of material, containing some very unclear, even garbled, information. In particular the material was confusing as regards the distinction between two-candidate-preferred and two-party-preferred results.

Despite what the edit history appears to show, if you actually read the second (and subsequent) paragraphs I wrote, you will see that it relies heavily on previous material. I did not delete much material at all.

If an editor cannot delete or modify any material at all from an existing entry, what is the point? If I "try again" to improve the problems with the existing article, the result will be similar and I don't want to get involved in an editing war. So could you please look carefully at my edit and tell me the specific things I removed which should be retained, and the things I added which should be removed?

Tullyvallin (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Labor finished ahead of the Liberals on a 59.4 percent two-party vote from a 15.1 percent two-party swing, marking the first time since the 1985 election that Labor won the two-party vote in Fisher". And i'm sorry you have trouble distinguishing the difference between two-party and two-candidate preferred. Timeshift (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Victorian pre-election pendulum[edit]

Uh oh, Antony Green was very critical of Wikipedia a few days ago regarding the Pre-election pendulum for the Victorian state election, 2014 which you created. It should not have been based on the post-2010 pendulum as there was a redistribution underway. I've had a go at updating it just now, can you have a look? --Canley (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering he has a wikipedia account, i'm very tempted to sofixit him :) Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Heh! :) I'm just doing the maps for the Victorian election now and setting up the results database to generate the tables. How about the latest scandal today? I'm getting that Lindsay pamphlets feeling again! -Canley (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Which scandal? I just can't keep up anymore hah. Timeshift (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Pornography ring running from the Premier's office (allegedly). Gold! --Canley (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought you may had been referring to that but how does it give you a Lindsay pamphlets feeling? Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Election links talk page[edit]

Given your previous input you may be interested in this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Election_links The Tepes (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

South Australian House of Assembly[edit]

As an editor of South Australian political articles I think you should be informed that You Know Who has taken it upon himself to edit the image for the seats of Parliament, much like he's done for the federal level.The Tepes (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Its been made clear over a long period of time that he has no interest in collaboration. In this case, and if he doesn't want to change, he should just leave wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Want to throw in your two cents Talk:South Australian House of Assembly? The Tepes (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Electoral district of Adelaide[edit]

Hi TS9! Just started expanding Kenneth Bardolph stub, and couldn't find the multi-seat Electoral district of Adelaide 1933–1938 held by his brother Douglas Bardolph. Before I do something that might have to be reverted, does it exist already and I just can't find it? Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there is one. I am against articles like Electoral district of MacKillop however, what an eyesore. I wonder if there's a way to make them auto-collapse, or failing that, move to a different article... Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at McKillop; you're right. But this addition wouldn't be very big or complicated - just a separate table above the existing one? Easy to do, easy to follow. Doug butler (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
So 40 years of Electoral district of Torrens worth? I'd really love someone to come along and auto-collapse non-current tables in these articles... Timeshift (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I've got an Excel table of the members for Adelaide from 1902 to 1938 if you want me to do the table layout, or just check it when you've done it. I remember having a discussion about including the months in these lists—useful information I guess but very messy looking. --Canley (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I really don't want the tables myself... not in their current implementation anyway. Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The simpler the better. Tables are really useful for seeing who succeeded whom and who sat with whom. Years of course, and color coding for parties. If you're after more details that's a click away. Doug butler (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I've done a table for the four-member period from 1902 to 1915 and put it in the article. Two issues: the rows should overlap more where year ranges don't align, but that is very difficult to code but I'll keep trying. Also not sure of some of the non-Labor parties of some of the members, or of the particular brands of Labor around that time (United Labor, Lang Labor, Independent Labor). --Canley (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
My how I wish we could auto-collapse previous incarnations. Timeshift (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Done! Have another look... --Canley (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I LOVE IT! *kiss* Would you be prepared to go further and do the same to other similar SA state electorate articles? Timeshift (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, very nice work to all involved. I know from NSW what a pain multi-member electorates are to code, source, etc. Where they should be overlapping, I always just put an extra colour row in there (as in, instead of having rowspan for the colours, just repeat the colours for every row. You can kind of tell that it's a cheat but at least it's accurate). For early Labor incarnations, The Drover's Wife is the person to talk to. And lastly ... I'm sorry to say it, but I really, really hate the idea of autocollapsing previous incarnations. They are just as important as the current one, and if they're a bit massive, well, they're a huge part of what makes up election articles. We might as well auto-collapse the results tables if we're going down that road. Frickeg (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the SA electorate articles were originally deficient because the parliament's online resources only went back so far when they were originally created, and so I'm not surprised that some of them lack members from the multi-member era.
As for the parties: the article currently doesn't have the full story for two of the Adelaide members: Denny was one of the MPs booted out of the Labor Party in the 1931 split and sat as Premiers' Plan or Ministerial Labor until the 1934 reuniting of the party, and Collaton was Lang (1931-1932), then a Lang splinter party (1932), and then official Labor (1932-1933), not just straight Labor. George was Labor throughout. I can't tell you much about the turn of the century groupings - am just well-read about the 1931 split. I can't code tables for shit so hopefully someone else can find a way to get this across in the article.
I have no particular opinion about the autocollapsing: while I agree that they're just as important, I've always thought the multiple tables looked bloody ugly. I don't think we've ever found a good table solution - my overall preference was back in the olden days when we just put the MPs for multi-member electorates in a single-file list same as the others. I'm not terribly fussed either way though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm politically naïve compared to you guys, but I spent a lot of time scouring the contemporary newspapers, and Bardolph's "party" after Lang Labor was always labelled "Lab." or "Labor"; the only references to "Independent Labor" or was by journalists. Australian Labor Party was always "A.L.P." in election results and lists of candidates. [[Australian Labor Party|A.L.P.]] makes more sense than [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]]. Autocollapse makes no sense to me with such small tables, especially where there's members who span both several tables. Thanks for the other fixes. Doug butler (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Which sources? Not stirring, genuinely curious. My hunch would be (from memory, it's been a while) that a lot of the broader sources threw the entire split era into the too hard basket and papered over all the party changes (essentially thinking "well they were all still "Labor" of some sort"), which is why I had such a bastard of a time even working out who got kicked out of the party to form the PPLP/MLP. But I'd have to go over them again to check that! The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Frickeg: Do you really prefer it to look like Electoral district of MacKillop or Electoral district of Torrens? Why would we collapse the results table when it's the most recent? That would be like autocollapsing the current incarnation MP list too - or like putting every historical result on to the same page rather than Electoral results for the district of x articles. Sorry to say, but historical is not as important as current. They certainly are important and need to be there, nobody is arguing otherwise, but current always takes priority over historical - it's what the bulk of visitors would be looking for.

Drover: Yes, multiple tables indeed look "bloody ugly".

Doug Butler: Labor is used all over wikipedia, not "A.L.P.".

I've got a bold suggestion. How about the result table comes first, then the members list comes second and we start latest MP at top and earliest MP at bottom? Sounds like a radical idea, I know, but it would be in order of what the average reader would be on average wanting to read first. Timeshift (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a little disingenous, because neither MacKillop (a gigantic mess) nor Torrens uses the currently standard format. To use a better example, would I rather it looked like Electoral district of Murrumbidgee? Yes. I acknowledge that it is not exactly the tidiest-looking thing in the world, but it's the best we've come up with. I'm certainly open to suggestions for improving these tables, but I don't think collapsing them is the answer, and I absolutely disagree that current takes precedence over historical - that is WP:RECENTISM.
I agree with Timeshift on Labor vs. ALP, though. Labor at least gives some information for the total novice (i.e. a non-Australian), whereas no one outside Australia would have a clue what ALP stands for.
Not a fan of the idea that we reverse the order. To begin with it would require a colossal amount of work, which I really don't think is warranted by the size of the problem. (We are just now getting to the stage where most of the member tables are standardised. It's taken years. We shouldn't change it again without a very good reason.) I also find it another example of WP:RECENTISM, not to mention counter-intuitive. People expect to see members listed in chronological order, with the earliest first. I don't think most people come to the electorate pages looking for just the election results, and I think their current position is best. Frickeg (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Frickeg that Electoral district of Murrumbidgee is a damn sight better than what the multi-member SA articles look like, and if we could get them all to looking like that I'd be particularly happy. I agree with both of you on Labor vs ALP for the reasons Timeshift stated. I also disagree with the suggestion of reversing the order - marginally because it's counter-intuitive but mainly because of the epic shit-ton of work for very minimal gain. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Electoral district of Murrumbidgee is so long :( The majority of casual readers will want to know about Adrian Cruickshank or Adrian Piccoli rather than John Hay or George Macleay, yet they come last and all the way down the bottom of the article. I think of it like List of x state by-election articles. Most recent comes first. The most recent one is the one most likely that readers will want to look at. Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Cruickshank was a backbencher fifteen years ago; I highly doubt people want to know more about him than, say, George Dibbs, a former premier. But anyway, we don't want to be making those judgement calls. Piccoli, as the current member, is mentioned in the very first paragraph, and also would be mentioned in the infobox if there was one (no objection to that here). The by-elections article is really a different case entirely. Further on the order: I also foresee significant problems in how this would be organised. How would party switches be handled? Does this mean that, say, Hamilton-Smith would appear first as Independent - that's clearly a misleading impression. Also, does any source anywhere list members in reverse?
I'll also say that I chose Murrumbidgee as the example because it's about as long as they get, being (with Parramatta) the oldest electorate in Australia, at least until next year. Hardly any electorates would approach that length. Frickeg (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, bad example, but my point stands IMHO. Timeshift (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

You need to be very careful about calling other editors' work "silly" in your edit summaries. I have reverted. Let us see whether more polite editors object; if they don't, there is no issue. Tony (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Electoral district of Kaurna[edit]

In regards to your recent revert, how was the information controversial? The division of pre-selections between factional lines is common practice. The information was cited as part of an article from a national news outlet and give better insight into the electorate.

Factional preselection divisions require a WP:RS, you can't just use a blog. Use a RS and there won't be an issue. Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, we've never had a discussion about whether The Poll Bludger is a reliable source and I think we probably should. Personally, I think it is a "blog" in the same way that that Antony Green's Blog is a "blog": William Bowe is probably the second foremost election analyst in the country behind Green, the foremost on the areas Green doesn't cover, and the ABC's stand-in when Green isn't available (e.g. when there's simultaneous state elections), and I think he should be considered a reliable source. That said, I think your removal was fine - the text you removed mischaracterised what the source actually said and made a big deal out of a minor thing that warranted brief mention at best. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with all your words. Poll Bludger is part of Crikey - perhaps we should have an AUP discussion/vote to sort out once and for all whether Crikey, and/or Poll Bludger, can be a WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this would be a really good idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
As you were the one to say "we've never had a discussion about whether The Poll Bludger is a reliable source and I think we probably should", do you want to start up a discussion? :) Timeshift (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

500px-Xmas tree animated.gif

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year :-) --Surturz (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And to you stranger! Timeshift (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Diagrams[edit]

Just revert it.

Three greys? Well one was Xenophon team and the other two were Independents.

DestinationAlan (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Parliamentary Portraits: Hey there, sorry to bother you again but what is the licencing policy on images of politicians from the Parliamentary websites? DestinationAlan (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Usually not allowed as they are copyrighted. Are you just asking, or do you have an example on wikipedia? Timeshift (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just asking because it feels "frustrating" to see an empty blank space on the 2018 Victorian Election page or most likely the 2015 NSW Election Page. DestinationAlan (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but don't you think if we could use them, we would be using them? :) Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Victorian State Election Charts[edit]

Hey mate, your chart looks better than mine, it's just that the President of the Legislative Council (a Liberal who was re-elected yesterday) is shown as a Labor MLC. If you could fix that up, that would be great.

LeoC12 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder why the opposition would allow one of their own to be President and in effect give the govt an extra vote, assuming the vote isn't tied? Timeshift (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
That would be because the President has an ordinary deliberative vote just like any other member, as distinct from the speaker of the lower house. As for the chart which I added, I will correct it when it can, but the solution is not to replace it with an inferior chart that doesn't even show a president at all, among its other problems. Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Leadership Ballot[edit]

Do you think there needs to be a page regarding the leadership ballot for Labor in NSW? I was reading the Grauniad and they reported that Michael Daley has declared himself as a candidate. In regards to your response about the parliamentary portraits, you've got a fair point! DestinationAlan (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

We do federal leadership change pages but I don't think there's any state ones out there. In regards to not being able to use official portraits, everyone shares the frustration, but on the upside, it fosters engagement with politicians. Some politicians/staffers do actively give wikipedia high-quality photos, a better outcome than the generic fake-looking official portraits, as better than nothing as they may be. Timeshift (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that's a massive bonus then! You think emailing a few pollies will work? As for leadership ballots. Do you think it's necessary or? I mean I couldn't find much info on the latest Vic Lib ones. But the NSW one is pretty big because it's on the eve of a state election. Hopefully, the media does report something than "So and so is new xyz party leader" DestinationAlan (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Balance of power[edit]

Why did you revert an edit I made at Balance of power (parliament) removing a ludicrous claim? Colonial Overlord (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

10:30 on a Saturday night, and we're both editing Wikipedia. I guess that means we have something in common? Season's Greetings! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

We're both at home in the Adelaide CBD in Mid-January...? Timeshift (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
LOL! (So it would seem ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts on recent elections[edit]

Hi Timeshift9. They said one term governments did not exist but we have just seen in the last few months both Victoria and QLD. I didn't expect tonight for sure. I think people these days are smarter with less patience, when they see a bad government they toss them out no matter what. It is also very bad for the Liberal party that while the former Labor govts were in power for a long time, they cannot even last a term. I believe in NSW there won't be as large as a swing, living here they have not been as bad but surely shockwaves federally. I cannot see Abbott lasting the term. I have always been a fan of Turnbull, but being close to centre means the far right don't want him so can't see him coming back. Bishop I see as the only contender. What do you think? 110.20.186.74 (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

One-term govts are rare, but when you have the perfect state-federal toxicity, you have to give it to the LNP, they really know how to throw it away. I hope Abbott remains leader and loses the election. Anything else is just shuffling deckchairs on the titanic. Timeshift (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing Seats[edit]

First of all, I have updated the SA House of Assembly Composition as a result of the Davenport by-election. Second of all, when is the right time to start adding a table of the changing seats from the QLD Election?

Thanks in Advance, DestinationAlan (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

First, you took away a vacant but didnt add a lib. Second, not yet. Timeshift (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Morrison revert[edit]

Is it 2007 again? :-) --Surturz (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WELL HELLO! Good to see you! Chin up, things'll get better soon when the Coalition lose office :) From your perspective, wanna know the sad thing? This was all so preventable. We said Abbott was a long way from PM material, and boy has that played out. At least Howard didn't provide false election promises and didn't have the worst personality in the world. You've got everything going against you. I'm really enjoying it. Did you enjoy my lulz on your talkpage? No expansion needed, pick an issue any issue! I hope Abbott remains as leader, it would be sad for his government not to get voted out. But I doubt the leadership will change after the song and dance they made of changing leaders... so much for Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015. Trapped and nowhere to go. At this rate, Abbott loyalists should HOPE for one-term Tony! Abbott unusually "apologised for all his "errors of the past"" after becoming leader in 2009. A leopard doesn't change their spots, just look at the record. At this point Abbott should literally be begging the entire country for forgiveness. It's the people who hire, and it's the people who fire. ELECTION NOW! Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Mate, take a breath, you're turning blue :-) Unfortunately for Abbott even if he survives the ballot on Tuesday, the leadership speculation won't go away. Abbott lost a lot of friends knighting Prince Phillip. He would have done better knighting Prince William or Princess Mary of Denmark --Surturz (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Correct. Once significant leadership speculation has occurred, the sitting leader is a sitting duck. At this rate, Abbott loyalists should HOPE for one-term Tony! The crows truly are coming home to roost. I want him gone at an election, though having another 1.5 years of Australia's most divisive PM ever... ugh. Timeshift (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So Surtzy, do you believe the issue is with the salesman or what he's selling, or both? and lol! Timeshift (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No comment :-) --Surturz (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course not :) Timeshift (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Four out of 10, or two-thirds of the backbench, voted against Abbott with no other candidate standing. lulz. I want him voted out at the next election but somehow I think he'll get dumped sooner unfortunately. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Abbott isn't out of the woods yet. By bringing the vote forward a day, he has to survive tomorrow's party meeting too - what happens if a significant number of ministers resign then? --Surturz (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Abbott was never seriously under threat and won't be for a while, if not at all. They've fallen in to a trap of believing changing of PMs, mid-term, destroys their chances at the next election. What is destroying their chances is toxic Abbott (not to mention their toxic policies) but they can't see it. I really hope Abbott leads the govt to the next election so they can lose in a massive landslide :) Timeshift (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Abbott saying Labor are being obstructionist - HAHAHAHAHA oh the irony! Who's the govt? Where does the buck stop? Suck it up Tone, suck it up. Such a contrarian. He can give it out in spades but he can't take it. Loving the polls lately. Are they the worst in Aus polling history for an incumbent govt? Timeshift (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"My question is to the Prime Minister. Given one-third of her parliamentary colleagues have expressed their lack of confidence in her, how can she continue as PM?" - Tony Abbott, Feb 27 2012. LOL! Timeshift (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright opinion[edit]

I'd like to lift some graphs from this series of PDFs (for example the most recent one: [3]. The copyright notice implies that the license is CC BY 3.0 AU. What do you think, can we use the graphs? --Surturz (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Timeshift (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ferny Grove[edit]

Good morning. The points I was mainly trying to address with this edit at Electoral district of Ferny Grove were that there were five candidates, not just three, and to provide a reference for the bankruptcy of Mark Taverner (which has potential to be a BLP issue). Your edit summary reverting my and several other edits included "results not final", despite me having referenced an Electoral Commission Queensland page that had DECLARED written in dark red in the middle of the page. I appreciate your rewording of the second paragraph. --Scott Davis Talk 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Please feel free to improve on it. I essentially lifted the text below the table at Queensland_state_election,_2015#Seats_changing_hands so we had matching/non conflicting information. I love referencing the ever-reliable Antony. Timeshift (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On a lighter note...[edit]

Petition to get TISM to perform at Eurovision...link --Surturz (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision. Ugh. Lol. Timeshift (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

POV tag revert[edit]

I was in the middle of adding my reasons on the talk page when you reverted. Next time, please assume good faith and give me more than a minute to add talkpage justification of POV-tagging. --Surturz (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

SA lower house diagram[edit]

Hey, you deleted my diagram of the SA lower house and I was just wondering why, when I took the time to create it, thinking it would make the article look better. Given the "assume good faith" thing, I think calling my work "terrible" was quite harsh. So perhaps you could tell me how your destructive action could be classed as more productive than mine? As a new user I am still not too sure how this all works. Thanks :) Hshook (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As you may have noticed in the article's history tab], User:DestinationAlan has been uploading the preferred graph but needed adjusting. Can you please adjust the graph so it has only two rows rather than three? Three is too much for a finely balanced lower house of only 47. If you can adjust it to two rows i'll be happy. Thanks. And welcome. Timeshift (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Reading through the history page, it seems to me that for as much work as Destination Alan put into the diagram there was nastiness about the work. "they just look horrible" "still wrong" "terrible design" and to me, "terrible, pls take to talk page for consensus". I don't write this to inflame the situation but just to invite you to make changes you see necessary instead of writing things which could be taken to be nasty, or deleting the work of other people just because it doesn't fit your standards. I updated the diagram a while ago to fit in with other Australian parliamentary diagrams, and I like the way it is now, to me it suits the SA chamber as it actually contains three rows. Again, if you want to update the diagram in whatever way you want then go ahead, but please don't bite the newcomers or claim ownership of the article/diagram. Thanks for all your work on Wikipedia and I hope we can all work together to improve coverage of Australian politics in the future! Hshook (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Helen Westwood[edit]

Well, first of all she won't be last, she's just the last I've been able to find - all parties must have tickets of at least 15 in NSW, and the 9th position is actually winnable in a very good year (the Coalition won 10 last time!). Anyway, I found it in her valedictory speech, in which she says she was "kindly offered" the 9th position by her faction after losing the main preselection. Frickeg (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

So she's not resigning as her article says, but she's actually recontesting? Timeshift (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Correct. I have removed the bit in her article where it says she's retiring. Frickeg (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Timeshift (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Ferguson Left[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ferguson Left, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Leslie Drury[edit]

Okay I just moved to possibly living-is there any info that they are still alive? since there is only one link, no DOB and no info in over 30 years. Wgolf (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Minchin Protocol[edit]

Hello - hope this is an appropriate place to ask. I can't find info on the Minchin Protocol on wp, not even mentioned in or referenced from, Nick Minchin article. Would there be a reason? Thanks for any advice.--JennyOz 14:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennyOz (talkcontribs)

FAR[edit]

I have nominated South Australian state election, 2006 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

How they got a consensus for the minor parties in the infobox for the federal elections is beyond me...I tried to fix it and make it akin to the Canadian election ones but apparently it was too 'squished up'. But hey, I can't complain.

Looks like I'm getting back into American politics editing.

DestinationAlan (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

+1 Adding the minor parties to infoboxes is stupid. Please let me know any future attempts to get rid of them I'll be there to support. --Surturz (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Australian politicians[edit]

Well I am not familiar with this subject (or rather just not a expert) I will admit I have been getting the DOB's/DOD's from the refs-which some of them are missing so I am putting them as possibly living until we get more info! Wgolf (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No probs. Just remember when adding the DOB that the dash is the longer one – not the shorter - one. Timeshift (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)