User talk:Timeshift9/Archive1

Articles

Nice work on those politics articles. If you need any help, feel free to ask me on my talk page! Enjoy wikipedia. michael ^talk 13:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Politics

What a bit of writing and political theory there ;). Feel free to contribute further, but remember that wikipedia is not a place to set a personal political agenda. On an SA politics note, I'm a Liberal, but I think both parties are an embarassment to the state. Good luck with your writing, I look forward to seeing what you will produce. michael ^talk 05:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

About the Electoral district of Morialta, this affects many electorates, so I think the best place to bring it up would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics. I think this would be a suitable project for you to join. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 05:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Image use policy. In a nutshell, unless its copyright-free or fair use, it cant be on wikipedia. South Australian Government images are copyrighted. michael ^talk 06:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Tables / Article Updates

Nice work on adding all of that to the articles - certainly makes interpreting the results a lot easier! michael ^talk 23:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's annoying me about them is that in some articles, the horizontal line cuts through the table :P I'm also looking to add another column to add the two party preferred tally as it's not always easy to figure it out (family first preferenced labor in a handful of seats)... got any suggestions? Timeshift 07:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a separate two-party-preferred table below the first pref results, but I guess an extra column could work. The problem would be that the title is much wider than the content, which also only goes two rows deep. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with a seperate Two Party Preffered table below. I'll see if I can do one. michael ^talk 06:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done up an example at Bragg. What do you think? michael ^talk 06:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it, except that two party preferred and 2006 state election are in the same context... does it look better with the adjustment I made or better as it was before? And finally, who wants to update them all? :-) Timeshift 09:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked the layout at Electoral district of Chaffey, But I think I like the extra links at Bragg better, as it helps foreigners to find the relevant info that we wouldn't want to repeat in every electoral district article. We should probably move or summarise this chat into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Electorates which is talking about standards for the whole country. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Finished off the correct layout for the electorates and also ensured the ABC and SEO profiles and SEO maps are on each page now. Timeshift 03:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Playford/Kavel

See reply on my page. Rocksong 04:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for you :)

Timeshift, for your exceptional work on the SA electoral district articles, an Exceptional Newcomer Award for you! I think we all really appreciate the hard work you've put into these in your first month editing Wikipedia. Look forward to working with you on more Aussie articles... Cheers — Donama 05:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou :-) Timeshift 10:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Independent issue

You might want to double-check the new tables you've added. As there's no party colour for the independents, the wikicode shows as a big long ugly red link in those electorates, and warps the table accordingly. Rebecca 07:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? How do I fix this? Timeshift 10:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. For some reason, it only does this in diff mode. How odd. Rebecca 10:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

One example is Electoral district of Little Para - does it even not in diff mode. I'll fix it if I can. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cured: I simply defined {{Australian politics/party colours/Other}}. Not sure if it should be white, black, or grey. For the moment, it's black (despite the edit comment that says white - oops). --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't independents typically be white to indicate their nonpartisanness? (sic, dunno if its even a word) Timeshift 04:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide

Hi Timeshift. There is a bit of a move to get this going, to discuss WP stuff and plans for the future, esp w.r.t. WikiProject Adelaide and other AUS related stuff for WP. Tell us what you think. REgards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC).

I dont tend to get in to netmeets however I would be very interested to see what is discussed if it is posted on here and I am more than happy to help expand on areas or help on issues that are raised. Timeshift 10:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

re broken link

The references links in South Australia should be fixed now - sorry about that. I was doing a pass through to reference the obvious bits and add a bit. I'd like to see us get both Adelaide and South Australia up to featured status, and references are one thing obviously missing from the article. I expect O-Bahn Busway will be nominated soon. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

The images you have uploaded will be deleted unless you can provide a fair use rationale. I'd suggest trying to write a rationale for the premiers' images (this shouldn't be too hard) and see if you can find someone to make up a copyleft replacement of the electorates map. Donama has been kind enough to create some maps in the past, perhaps leave her a message? You've done some excellent work on the election article - keep it up! :) michael ^talk 14:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift, you want coloured maps showing which party won in which electorate? I'll see what I can do, but I'm afraid I just can't do it immediately. It looks like I have a backlog of 3 map drawings to do, which is no problem -- these map-tracing sorts of drawings are pretty easy to do -- but it requires me to be at home on my mac which has Photoshop. And I'll be away for the weekend. Perhaps early next week. I saved the current images you're using on my desktop in case Wikipedia deletes them in the meantime for being copyrighted.

Also, just one other thing (with regard to Michael's words above) -- the correct pronoun for me is actually "her". I guess there was no way Michael could know this though :) Cheers — Donama 06:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be very much appreciated, thanks :) Timeshift 06:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hows them maps coming along? Mine got deleted :(

This weekend, okay -- sorry they've been slow in coming -- I just don't get much time to switch to my mac for this, even though the map itself is a quick thing to do. — Donama 12:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've saved you the worry :-) Cheers anyway. Timeshift 12:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

You've put an exceptional amount of work into South Australian politics articles, particuarly those relating to the recent election. In recognition of your work, I award you this barnstar - enjoy! michael ^talk 06:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A second barnstar! I'm being spoilt now :-) Timeshift 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Matthew

The best bet is to jump onto Waymat's talk page and have a chat to him about it - he's probably the right person to convince in this situation. Personally I'd edit the text to show he's a moderate (and therefore would support Brown by default over Olsen) rather than a conservative. But, again, your best bet is to communicate with Waymat. michael ^talk 13:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Moderate is a great way to put it. Thanks for the suggestion. Timeshift 14:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

1997 election

A long time ago. You have a source for this? Adam 11:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/sa/2006/guide/pastelec.htm and http://www.abc.net.au/elections/sa/2006/guide/lchistory.htm Timeshift 11:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will fix it. Adam 03:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nettle

"The Greens claim they were elbowed by Coalition MPs, while it is understood Senator Lightfoot told Senator Nettle to "f... off" during the melee." - The Australian, 24 October 2003. Rebecca 07:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

John Howard article and citations

Hello Timeshift9! If possible, would you be able to use the {{cite web}} template for your citations? It makes life alot easier for editors, bots and most importantly readers, and it's the standard and preferred way to cite web material per WP:CITE (there are other, very similar, templates for books, journals etc). The last four citations you added to the John Howard article I've already converted like so:

<ref name="news-costello_backers">{{cite web | url=http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19736460-2,00.html | title=Costello backers savage Howard | publisher=News Limited | author=Steve Lewis | date=2006-07-10 | accessdate=2006-07-10}}</ref>

<ref name="news-pm_deny">{{cite web | url=http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19734797-2,00.html | title=No, Prime Minister, you cannot deny it | publisher=News Limited | author=Glenn Milne | date=2006-07-10 | accessdate=2006-07-10}}</ref>

<ref name="abc-howard_polls">{{cite web | url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1678196.htm | title=Howard dismisses 'fluctuating' polls | publisher=[[ABC News and Current Affairs]] | date=2006-07-04 | accessdate=2006-07-10}}</ref>

<ref name="the_aus-beazley_outback_ir">{{cite web | url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19734788-7583,00.html | title=Ross Fitzgerald: Battle-hardened Beazley prepares to make his move | publisher=[[The Australian]] | date=2006-07-10 | accessdate=2006-07-10}}</ref>

and you can see the results of this template in the references section of the John Howard article.

Regards, --darkliight^[πalk] 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

Thomas Playford IV

I changed your edit here; the Playmander is already mentioned in the article and adding that line to the current introduction destracts from the text. When I eventually get around to rewriting the article I'll be sure to mention it in an enlarged introduction, though. michael ^talk 15:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Online Newspaper Archive

Given your work on politics articles I figured this might come in handy - if you've got a library card for your local library go online to elibrary and enter your number. Its easy to use, and great for referencing. michael ^talk 07:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Xenophon

The source you cited said that Foley abused Xenophon. Your wording, in its vagueness, suggested that they both had equal responsibility. Rebecca 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you are deliberately being misleading. Rebecca 04:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Map for 2006 election image licenses

Hi Timeshift, I hope you'll be able to do the maps some other way. I don't have much motivation to contribute to Wikipedia these days. They're honestly not hard to do. I just don't feel like spending the time anymore. Sorry for renegeing on an offer to do the map here. — Donama 11:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I already said not to worry about it :-) I did them myself. Timeshift 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There once was a man from Nantucket

Your grammar correction ("If my ear were a cunt, I could fuck it.") is much appreciated. Good grammar is the hallmark of decorum. Ghosts&empties 14:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not so sure now... when I reflect on it and analyse and think carefully, the word "were" is still correct, but not for reasons of past tense. As it is quoting what he said at the time, he was saying that if it were the case that his ear was a cunt, he could then fuck it. Gee, all this naughty language :-) Timeshift 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

South Australian election

There is no notability standard for featured articles - any article that is notable enough to be in Wikipedia is notable enough for featured status. If it were otherwise, my current project certainly wouldn't be notable enough. :)

A few things you might want to look at:

• most crucially, it needs inline citations, and lots of them (twenty or thirty seems to about the minimum today)
• the lead is quite short, and this would probably be an issue - I suggest maybe doubling it in size (briefly describing the campaign? number of seats that changed hands? Xenophon factor in LC?)
• you may be able to tighten up the prose a bit - you might want to ask Cyberjunkie and Beneaththelandslide to go over it (they seem to be the best copyeditors we have at the moment) - you might also want to read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a
• you're going to need solid fair use rationales for all images used. This may be an issue with the party logos and leader images.
• the amount of lists and the large white space next to the maps could be an issue
• I also wonder if a few areas couldn't be expanded a bit - you might want to nominate the article for WP:PR, and enlist some of the other South Australian editors to make a few suggestions

Don't get me wrong, though - this is an excellent article, and really set the standard for Australian election articles. :) Rebecca 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If I have the time, I'll surely be onboard to help this article achieve Featured status. michael ^talk 02:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

SA ConCon

It's my belief that Rann's proposed referendum is totally unrelated to - in fact at odds with - the SA Constitutional Convention recommendations. Also to my knowledge Rann hasn't given an undertaking to offer to reduce upper house terms for 4 years. If you disagree we should probably thrash it out on one of the Talk pages, though I'm unsure which is most suitable. Rocksong 00:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops OK, Rann says he'll offer the option of 4 year terms, though it's not his preferred option. But I still say it's unrelated to the ConCon: Rann's proposal will be tied to reducing the number of Upper house MPs [1], but the ConCon said that the number of Upper House MPs should stay the same (p.25, Table 3). Rocksong 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree. If it was in response to the ConCon, why did he have as his preferred option to abolish the Upper house, when the ConCon said keep it (Table 2, p. 24)? And why did he ignore its two most popular recommendations (p.33)? But the real point is Rann himself didn't link the proposal to the ConCon (nor did any other pollies or commentators at the time AFAIK), so neither should Wikipedia. Rocksong 04:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Peter beattie.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter beattie.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to FIVEaa

Re: [Hi there. I notice you are rebranding everything from 5AA to FIVEaa, which whilst it seems somewhat trivial, I suppose it is appropriate considering their website only mentions FIVEaa. To make it easier for you to find pages that link to 5AA/FIVEaa, simply go to it (FIVEaa on wikipedia) and then click on "what links here" on the left. For instance, I can see that Mark Aiston still has 5AA. Hope that helps you. Timeshift 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)]

Hey there, thanks. I've been in contact with the heads at FIVEaa for a seperate matter regarding a talkback forum mainly devoted to the station, and during the conversation they did make it clear that they do not wish to be called '5AA', this is where the rebranding came from :)

Thanks for the tips on fixing broken links. I've done a couple before now, but I'll get around to doing more of them shortly. THANKS :)

image deletion

Image:Peter Debnam.jpg was deleted under I3. I see you've uploaded it again and that the auto-tagging has listed it as I3 again. I'm no image copyright guru so I can't help you out with copyright issues here, but I do see that your source page says, "No part of this publication may be reproduced by any process, electronic or otherwise [...] except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968." I don't know what the Copyright Act ot 1968 is. But this image is likely to be deleted again (not by me) unless it gets a new tag. Cheers. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to write fair use rationales. It should be easy enough for an official portrait — take a look at the one I did for Don Dunstan. michael ^talk 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Use this one: {{Fair use in|Peter Debnam}} michael ^talk 14:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The image page should be fixed (I don't understand how you couldn't modify it earlier). Please make the minor changes to organise it appropriately. Glad to help. :) michael ^talk 14:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Russell Wortley

Nice awards. About the Russell Wortley reference, it's been archived and there's not much chance of finding it for free. I've included the date and title to allow searching of the archive. However I can provide an excerpt:

"Among the more recent is Liberal Deputy Leader Vickie Chapman, who has been stepping in out a series of military-style jackets, earning her the moniker Sergeant Pepper.

Premier Mike Rann noticed Ms Chapman's new fashion craze back in May.

"I enjoy the Deputy Leader's Sergeant Pepper approach to Question Time," he taunted at the time.

Even our esteemed Premier cannot escape the nickname frenzy, known as Media Mike for his ability to whip up public fanfare and draw media mileage out of issues on his agenda.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Isobel Redmond scored herself the name Flipper among some pollies. The catchy title caught on after Ms Redmond told Parliament that, while working as a lawyer for an Aboriginal tribe on the state's West Coast, she was bestowed an Aboriginal name, Joondinya, meaning dolphin.

Across the floor sits Treasurer Kevin Foley and Transport Minister Patrick Conlon - or Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble to some.

The comic pair is known for quick wit in Question Time. They often are seen huddled together, laughing, just like the loveable cartoon duo. Can anyone see the resemblance between the legendary loudmouth Fred and his side-kick Barney to the two ministers? Yabba Dabba Do.

On the backbench sits newly-elected and newly-engaged Chloe Fox, who said last week she felt like a ``princess in the wedding gown she will walk down the isle in on her special day.

In little more than a week the lovely Ms Fox now is known simply as Princess."

--Zzymurgy 07:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Olsen Crikey link

The John Olsen Crikey link was a good read. Sorry but I felt I had to delete it because it only exists in the Google cache, and I don't think the Google cache qualifies as a decent link. Obviously if you can find the non-cached version then put the link back. Rocksong 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you could leave it there until it disappears, I guess. Just be aware that it will disappear. The Google cache refreshes about once a month, I think. p.s. your 2nd mod gave a link which didn't work. Rocksong 03:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of the article, it says you can have access to the Crikey archive for $55. Crikey own the copyright so are well within their rights to do that. As for the article itself: if you leave aside the opinion bits, I think the actual history is reasonably accessible. Lots of it is scattered through the Wikipedia Brown/Olsen/Ingerson/Hall/ETSA articles already, though more would be good. The ABC seems to keep its articles forever, so linking to them can be good, even if they're less juicy than the Crikey ones.Rocksong 03:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Family First

It is a smear. Its a punch n' response sentence, and completely out of place. Accusing a party of such a thing in an election article, and backing it up with a pathetic rebuttal is one of the easiest ways to add bias. I certainly don't see such a silly phrase attacking the ALP, the Libs or the Nats in the article so its very interesting that FF is targeted in such a way. michael ^talk 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm? That addition was a deliberate attempt to attack the party. michael ^talk 14:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper stories are made at various slants but editors here can pick and choose what they wish to include from them. The editor could have included a neutral sentence, but they deliberately decided to choose one that attacked Family First. The words used connected the party directly to the churches as if it was some kind of reculsive power-grab. A dismal denial by the party leader doesn't help, either. michael ^talk 14:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Every party gets attacked, yes, but the attacks can stay in the idiotic Murdoch tabloids and not find their way onto the pages of Wikipedia. We're not here to lay judgement on any issue or party, we're here to lay out fact (not speculation, opinion or shit-throwing) and let readers decide for themselves. michael ^talk 14:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be accusations of "hidden agendas" and the party being "an arm of the Christian Right (a pejorative term) movement" in the first place. Having a debate style (punch [accusation], and subsequent cover [quote]) to articles is poor and inherently biased. Surely there are better things to write about regarding the Party during an election that slurs and accusations being hurled at them—where is information regarding campaigning and policy? michael ^talk 14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Crikey article, do you fail to see that it is nothing but speculation and attack after attack? It is fear mongering and preying on the uninformed who know nothing more of the matter at hand. It blows them right out of proportion and makes them look like a dangerous juggernaut, ready to strike. michael ^talk 14:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"It's a pity that family first holds two legislative council positions..." Yes, you'll have to disagree. michael ^talk 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

POV and incorrect assertions (from Admin Noticeboard)

Hopefully I am reporting this to the right place. In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_PC I have continued to revert the bits of Igor Sotelo's contributions that are POV or are incorrect assertions, but he continues to revert my corrections. We have discussed on the talk page in length but cannot come to concensus. Please review and take action as appropriate. Thankyou for your time. Timeshift 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsure why I have not got a response from an admin. If this is the incorrect place to request this, please let me know where I should be doing so. Thankyou. Timeshift 04:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift, I'm not an admin but I can try to answer your question. I expect the reason you didn't get a reply is that content disputes don't generally require administrator intervention; anyone can help edit an article to keep it in line with a verifiable, neutral point of view. In looking at the article history, there's a lot of back-and-forth that isn't productive. Continue to try to work it out on the talk page rather than getting into an edit war, and you may want to ask for a third opinion to make it be about more than just the two of you. Bewaer of the three-revert rule, as well; reverting non-vandalism edits (i.e. content arguments) more than 3 times in a 24 hour period can get both/all parties involved blocked for 24 hours. -- nae'blis 16:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your suggestion, I have taken that course of action. It seems a bit strange and somewhat rude that the admins weren't even prepared to give me the time of day. All they had to do was say please take this to Third opinion as you have done. Again, thankyou. Timeshift 16:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

ANI (as the Administrator's Noticeboard is sometimes called) is a very busy place, and sometimes small threads can be overlooked in the fracas. I'm sure no one intended any slight by not responding in a more timely manner. -- nae'blis 16:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you get the help/input you were looking for through 3O? -- nae'blis 18:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

SA Election FA Drive

I'll see about going through the article and giving it a rough copyedit soon. From an initial look, the prose seems to be the only thing thats lacking.

It'll be interesting as hell getting this through WP:FAC. Lots of things will need to be clarified for a global audience. michael ^talk 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You asked what happens when you don't want to break the 3RR rule, but the other person is not giving up.

It's simple. Don't edit the page. Continue the discussion on the talk page, and leave the article alone until a decision is reached. I know its hard when you feel false information is in the article and you want to fix it, but these sorts of disputes are better worked out through discussion than edit waring. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Greens SA

Hey Timeshift, no the preselection is an SA matter. Sarah is only a candidate for SA, not federally. --Zzymurgy 11:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Response.

I was trying to stimulate meaningful discussion, rather than both of you simply repeating the same things over and over. Obviously he thought he had correct information, he needed you to tell him why his information was incorrect (i.e. PDA and Pocket PC are not the same thing) instead of simply repeating over and over that you are right and he is wrong. You did that, he responded, now you need to go and make a meaningful response to him. Discuss, don't argue, and don't repeatedly revert the page as that gets you no where. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You said, "I have repeated myself many times and find myself getting nowhere." I said, don't simply repeat yourself. If he didn't understand it the first time, repeating it again isn't going to help. Explain, don't just repeat. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. WinHunter ^(talk) 14:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Vaile

In similar "major party leaders" boxes i've seen in the papers the Nats are included. 01:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:

I don't recall saying that.I just rearranged it in order of the numbers... highest to lowest. michael ^talk 04:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably tomorrow. Its 1am right now, and I'm contemplating turning off msn and getting some sleep. Don't fret though, I'll go over them, you can fine tune them, and then everyone will sleep soundly Sunday night. :) michael ^talk 15:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Pocket PC RFC

Yes, a WP:RFC (short for Request for Comment) is an attempt to elicit additional input, sort of like 3rd opinion, but broader.

I don't know how much more useful I personally can be, and by listing the dispute in the telecommunications and digital technology section of requests for comment I'm hoping to interest people who, for example, know exactly how Pocket PCs and PDAs differ, and are in a better position to judge the validity of the sources cited.

Part of listing a RFC is to create a new section for the resulting comments. Hence, the new section summarizing each person's position.

Hope that explains it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ann Bressington

Technically, people who voted above the line for Nick Xenophon weren't just voting for Xenophon, they were giving Xenophon their vote to distribute as he saw fit. To be frank, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are too lazy to learn how our electoral system works, or who are too lazy to fill in 47 numbers below the line.

Defection and promise-breaking are not the same thing as the unexpected election of AB, but they are similar in the sense that people don't get what they think they voted for. In fact, I would contend they are worse, because a person can do their research and still get duped.

A related issue is that IMHO ticket voting totally sucks, and moves democracy away from people to the political parties. But while we've got it, people should take the time to either understand it, or vote below the line. Rocksong 07:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a copout. I'm saying it's not as bad as the backflips which happened all the time, and I stand by that. You say Never in the modern history of the LC has someone been elected where their policies or political leanings were unknown to practically everyone - true, but it's not like her name was drawn out of a hat: her qualities and policies were known to Xenophon. And like I said, when you vote above the line for Xenophon (or anyone else), you are putting your vote in their hands to distribute however they want. Whether or not they were too ignorant of the electoral process to realise this, voters who voted above the line for Xenophon were saying: we trust you with our preferences. That's how it works in the world of ticket voting. Rocksong 10:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we're going around in circles here, saying the same thing over and over. Yes, I agree her election was the most unexpected, even unintended, that I can recall. If that's all you're saying, I've no problem with it. All I'm saying is (a) the voters let Xenophon choose her, so no one can complain; and (b) in terms of an unexpected outcome (i.e. politicians going against what they said they'd do) I think it rates way below the examples I've already given (Olsen/ETSA, Peter Lewis, Mal Colston). Rocksong 05:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Timeshift, I've been reading through all these discussions, they're going nowhere. Leave it. michael ^talk 05:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The apology isn't required, because if what you said before was rude, its the most polite rudeness I've ever seen. I just wanted to make the point that the discussion wasn't really going anywhere. I really should've just asked Bressington what she thought of her election yesterday—my brother was interviewing her as part of his studies. michael ^talk 15:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read or heard anything discussed yet, but I'll pass it on if its useful. Regarding templates, I have no idea. michael ^talk 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Queensland state election, 2006

Hi Timeshift, Thanks for your contributions to this article, especially with the graphics. If you have any spare time, do you mind dropping by:

• Queensland state election, 1989
• Queensland state election, 1992
• Queensland state election, 1995
• Queensland state election, 1998
• Queensland state election, 2001
• Queensland state election, 2004

An anonymous user has tried to emulate your result tables, but hasn't quite pulled it off!

Cheers --- BrightLights 13:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that prompt reply Timeshift. Nice work with the Government of Queensland template too! Well done! Cheers --- BrightLights 00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Weird. There are multiple templates at John Howard and Mike Rann. Maybe it depends on the template definition. I'll look more if I get time. Rocksong 00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Factional shit-throwing isn't appropriate to mention, regardless of party—its complex and a mess. I can't see any imbalance at all regarding state/federal; the discriptions are concise and note both state and federal things—the only thing that could be seen as more federal is the Hawke-Keating economics—which, for the most part, have been adopted by the state govt and deserve to be mentioned. The ALP is a socialist party, no more! michael ^talk 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

More copyediting, fine-tuning, etc. She's close. michael ^talk 06:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Roisterer intends to do the Liberal Federation article when he has time (I'd do it, but I'm quite busy right now, hence why I haven't been editing much). If you *really* want to get rid of the red links, simply create a stub with 'The Liberal Federation was a liberal conservative South Australian political party. It was the predecessor to the Liberal and Country League, later the Liberal Party of Australia'. michael ^talk 06:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nowhere else to go, unless someone wants to sit on the stairs of Parliament until one of them stumbles by. michael ^talk 14:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Queensland state election, 2006 Pendulum

Hello again Timeshift, Thanks for adding the pendulum template, have just completed it. Just have a few questions to ask:

• Where do you get your seat status definitions from? I mean, the pre-election pendulum used only three classes: Marginal (0-5%), Safe (5-10%) and Very Safe (10%+), which I thought was convention, which is used also by ABC commentator Antony Green. This is discussed also on the article's talk page. Just want to be consistent, that's all.
• Do you think the National Party colour panels should be changed to a darker green, perhaps the darkest green could be similar to that in the party leader box? I personally think the current colour could be too bright, and is not really the party's colour anyway.

Thanks again for all your hard work. Cheers --- BrightLights 10:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My first barnstar! Thanks very much Timeshift! Cheers --- BrightLights 08:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Members of the South Australian House of Assembly

• On what basis are you removing past members from Category:Members of the South Australian House of Assembly - there is nothing in the cat description that confineds it to current members.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

MLCs

This is why we have the "first elected" column. Rebecca 06:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So fix the intro. Bolding half the names looks horrendously ugly. Rebecca 06:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

I ran the other three semi automated peer reviews and put them in the request. I am not an admin, just doing this to try and be helpful. When I went through peer review I just waited until my request was archived (I think if it is over a month old or has no repsonses in 2 weeks it is archived). However, if you feel it is ready, you can just go ahead to WP:FAC and nominate it there. User:Allen3 is the admin who keeps archiving old and now FAC requests, so he might be a better person to ask. Hope this helps and good luck, Ruhrfisch 02:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Playford IV Photo

Hey there. I note that you added a new image to the Thomas Playford IV page, which I'm presuming is a photo you took of a photo of Playford. I'm not entirely sure whether a photo of a (presumably) copywrited image comes under fair use. If it is okay to use this however, I don't suppose you have photos of Steele Hall or Frank Walsh? --Roisterer 02:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A delayed response here (apologies). The photos you took of the SA LegAss & LegCo should be fine (although, as we both noted, I am not an expert on these things). --Roisterer 06:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the talk surrounding the Peter Beattie image but I didn't think there was anymore I could add to what Rebecca and you had already mentioned. As for the pictures of Hall & Walsh, I asked about this on the Australian talk page about a year or so ago and was told that we couldn't use them because they were copyright. The photos of Dunstan, Tonkin et al. that we are using on the site were okay however because they had been on the site prior to a decision made not to include such photos. I will have a dig around the archives to see if I can find the discussion but I wouldn't be surprised if they get tagged for deletion. Top job anyway. --Roisterer 02:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

John Meier moved (again)

All right; now he's moved to John Meier (Australian politician); and all links to John Meier (Australian) are changed too, except from talk pages discussing the move.

As for how to do it (the next time): I'm newer than you on the wiki, and I don't know how to use automatical tools (which I think they call bots as in robots); I don't even know if everybody can do this, or just administrators. However, what both I and you can do is this (if you have some tool for backstepping in your browser):

• Go to the page you wish to move; in this case, J M (Australia).
• Click What links here in the left margin. You now get a new, specially created page, with a link to the page J M (Australia) on top, and links to all pages linking to it following.
• Click the link to J M (Australia), in order to get to that page again.
• On the top of the page, there are small 'buttons' sticking up, named article, discussion, et cetera. Click the one labelled move

You now have a fairly self-explanatory page up. You fill in the new name J M (Australian politician) in the correct place, and a motivation for the move (e. g., consistency ...), and you demand the move.

This is a wiki; you get the move of the page J M (Australia) to J M (Australian politician) performed immediately, with its history intact, and its Talk page being renamed in the same manner. Moreover, a brand new page is created, with the old name J M (Australia), and which only contains a redirect to the new page.

You could do it by only doing the last step. As far as I understand, however, this is bad style, since it may leave a number of unneccessary redirects or re-redirects or..., creating inefficiency and potentially worse later trouble (like self-referring double redirects). Therefore, I think it is better to follow all steps above, and to continue thus:

• Let your browser backstep to that page of all that links to J M (Australia) you created a while ago.
• Click the first item of the list (say, Electoral district of G).
• Edit the article, replacing all J M (Australian) by J M (Australian politician). (If you find a reference directly to [[J M]], which is now a disambiguation page, you may wish to change it to [[J M (Australian politician)|J M]], since the readers of this page know that the people here are Australian politicians, and are mostly not interested in 'name-stakes'.) Preview and save.
• Backstep to the list of pages linking to J M (Australia), and repeat with the next item on the list. Et cetera.

If you lose the link list, you can create a new one with a little trouble. You input going to the page J M (Australia) to your browser. You'll be redirected to J M (Australian politician), but on the top of that page, you find a tiny note stating redirected from J M (Australia). You click the page name there, and, loo, you're on the redirect page itself. Now, you click on What links here in the margin, as before.

There are three potential troubles with the procedures I follow. If you believe that the move may be controversial, it may be better to make a request for move first, and let people discuss and (well, more or less) vote. If there really are a very large number of articles linking to the one you want to move, you'd better ask someone who can use 'bots'. Finally, I think that the What links here only covers the English wikipedia. If your article has a few listed counterparts in other languages, you could go there and update their links back by hand; else, ask someone understanding 'bots'. I think all three clauses would apply, if you get the idea to move e. g. [[Australia]] :-) JoergenB 13:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Peter Beattie.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter Beattie.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 19:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

nsw candidates

hi it's only a draft been busy with other thing but it is based on qld and vic election templates for nsw elections

Please look at the updated page.203.213.96.43 07:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

SA Election

The article still needs a lot of work; I really should've objected to it being put to FA so early (apologies). I want to help, but I'm very busy with life at the moment and am trying quite hard not to stumble over here.

The article needs to be trimmed, reorganised and reformatted for easier reading. michael ^talk 04:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, that; but also assignments, exams, work, etc if you want a quick insight! Cheers for the good luck message. michael ^talk 08:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I do want to help and intend to do so. However, as you may have noticed, I've been editing only sporadically due to exams, council and work. It'll be another three or so weeks before I can really get my mind into gear and tuck into the articles. So I will be there to help, in time.

Regarding your user page, I have no idea... I toyed around for a bit but I couldn't find a solution. The award from Donama seems to be the issue. Maybe convert it to a different style? michael ^talk 14:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had a crack at your userpage. I think it's the way you wanted.--cj | talk 11:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there TS. I'm good for help if you need it. Just had a good look over the election article page, it's come out very well. However, the one flaw is that it's quite overbearing and seemingly complex (especially from the point of view of someone who wouldn't be familiar with South Australian politics). I don't know exactly how to counter this; the page is arranged chronologically and the sections are appropriate. What would you say to either removing the pendulum or having it hidden by default? (it's graphically intense and distracts from the text flow) michael ^talk 10:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It actually upset me a tad when I saw it fail FAC because the article really was in good shape and those commenting could have offered the advice required for the appropriate changes to be made. Given there is no election article precedent, when it gains FA it will be a benchmark and you will be it's bearer. With regards the pendulum, its not the pendulum itself, which is interesting and unique, but the huge red and blue thing that suddenly appears in the middle of the text (does that make sense?).

All of us (who are mostly students) will find our way back to Wikipedia now that exams are ending. It'll pick up again soon, and I'm hoping for a meetup. :) michael ^talk 14:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I would just opt to make it hidden by default, but one click of a little [show] button and it's open (the code to do that is lying around somewhere). I'd then move the images of the electoral districts into the text body of House of Assembly results. michael ^talk 14:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, it's gotta try and stay true to the theme of australian election articles. Pendulums are the way they are headed. Also, if nobody who reviewed it said anything bad about it, it can't be that bad... Timeshift 14:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I would vote support and I believe it is ready. I'll be on hand to attend to any objects. michael ^talk 15:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Victorian election campaign article advice

Hi Timeshift9, you may like to add your opinion the discussion about the article format on Talk:2006 Victorian election campaign. Regards, Peter Campbell 04:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Playmander

The largest ALP win in history, yes, but that is almost *exactly* what the seats looked like in the 1965 election—and the caption explains the seats even further. I'll attempt to get an image of the seats for 1965 to replace it.

I can't see how it could "justify" the Playmander when the article simply explains why the Playmander was in place, it's effect, and its electoral unfairness. Even the caption for the image explains it: "there are 35 districts representing 1.1 million people. In the 1965 election, there were 13 districts representing 0.7 million." michael ^talk 06:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've lent some of my books to a friend but I should be able to find out within a week. michael ^talk 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the book back, and the image I want. I'll attempt to get a mate to draw up an .svg image that we can use. michael ^talk 04:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The book contains even nuance of detail about the South Australian elections of the era, the Playmander, electoral malapportionment and population changes. Playford to Dunstan, by Neal Blewett and Dean Jaensch (one of his early works), is a fantastic resource. If you want specific information now, and do not want to wait long, tell me what you want. michael ^talk 04:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

1,091,875 in 1966. michael ^talk

sa election FA

No idea—I'll throw it on the Aussie noticeboard. That might get some local assistance and support. michael ^talk 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just disappointed that it got no response in the latest FA... I certainly find the article interesting and consider it FA-worthy! The intro seems a bit too large, but it does well for a newcover to South/Australian politics. michael ^talk 06:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(sorry for the late reply) I'm not sure exactly what to do. All the options I'm thinking of are terribly unorthodox, simply because there's lots of talk page spam involved. It just need some good advertising and some interest in it, I suppose. There's nothing wrong with it and I'm sure any more minor qualms could be solved quickly. michael ^talk 13:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I felt a tad guilty because I didn't offer any solutions. I really don't know. Best to whore it out I suppose, send out messages to anyone that would seemingly care about it, ask them if they'd vote for it. There are a number of active and interesting politically-minded Aussie Wikipedians (Adam, Bec, etc) that could be contacted, messages could be left on the AusPolitics WikiProject page, you could try to get it nominated as the Aussie collaboration of the fortnight... michael ^talk 14:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Tony is an excellent editor and his standards are very high. Great text flows smoothly and poetically and I don't think the article is up to such a standard but is by no means poor. Regarding neutrality, it seems slightly slanted, but that's probably due given the size of the ALP win. michael ^talk 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I responded about Queen of Australia. As far as I can tell, the Queen of Australia acts as "Queen in right of South Australia", but it's the Queen of Australia, not a "separate" Queen of South Australia. Adam is the expert on this sort of stuff if we need one. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Some excellent work and talk page diplomacy in the last 24 hours! michael ^talk 14:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

All those references can be found in a 'hard copy'; use a newspaper database (I've listed one on this page somewhere, I'm sure) to look up the stories and their details. It's a pain in the ass, I know—but it shouldn't take too long. michael ^talk 08:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

paleoliberal rubbish.

That's a bit of original research in both the SA election article and the Liberalism in Australia article. Nowhere, in the many books I have read, or on the internet, is the Liberal Party described as absurdly as "paleoliberal". Find a reference or I can, under policy and with good reason, remove it. michael ^talk 10:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Google search for "Liberal Party of Australia paleoliberal". michael ^talk 11:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Freestyle editing...

Hi Timeshift9

As you're aware, I'm new to editing Wikipedia.

In fact, I'm not even sure how to contact you other than like this.

Thanks for pointing out the shortcomings in my edits with respect to the Wikipedia standards.

All of the claims I made were based on first hand knowledge or observation, by the way, although I admit that there is POV involved. So it's a fair call by you, and I shall take care in future.

Good luck in the large task you've set yourself.

Regards

Zingblat

Point of Order, Timeshift9, re Kate Ellis

If I keep this up I will sort out a talk page for myself.

Re Kate Ellis's academic record: I suggest that the statement 'she studied international relations at Flinders University' implies that, at the very least, Ms Ellis gained some sort of tertiary qualification from Flinders University in that field of study.

It is an easily verifiable fact that Kate did not gain any tertiary qualification whatsoever from Flinders University. She did not graduate, and to suggest otherwise is misleading.

Zingblat