User talk:Timeshift9/Archive6

2PP

Electorates that were not Labor vs. Coalition were: Melbourne (ALP vs. Greens), New England (Tony Windsor vs. Nationals), Kennedy (Bob Katter vs. Labor). I'm sure these are the only three; others came close, but not close enough. In 2004 they were Calare (Peter Andren vs Liberal), New England, Kennedy, and Mayo (Liberal vs. Brian Deegan). Frickeg (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

too many refs

You can indeed have too many refs. You need only one reliable source to say he was nominated for Time's most influential. There are over 100 refs for a man only 6 months into prime ministership. The article is suffering from over referencing. Itis also suffering from overlinking in the referencing (as is the John Howard article). The Sydney Morning Herald for example needs only one link. Linking dates in the refs leads to a sea of blue and it becomes unreadable. see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context

Note I also plan to choose one only of refs 5-8 to support that he studied and has a Chinese name. I will be persuaded if you can show me the guideline (or better the policy) that more than one reliable source is required to support a non-controversial assertion - note I am referring to non-controversial facts.--Matilda ^talk 04:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please read also Wikipedia:Citing sources - attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged ... excessive attribution is not required and I do not believe the material on Time or his learning of Chinese and his name is going to be challenged. Too many links mean that more than one is not relevant to the context. I will seek third opinions at WP:AWNB - or you can raise it there if you chose to --Matilda ^talk 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As it is a matter of general principle and not specific to Rudd - I think AWNB is better--Matilda ^talk 04:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I will cross ref the discussion--Matilda ^talk 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bragg

All because of our absolutely loopy electoral laws (courtesy of Bannon, might I add). We need Hare-Clark, multi-member constituencies, named after their major geographical region... i.e. a three member Adelaide Hills electorate, four member Elizabeth electorate, one member Adelaide City electorate, one member Eyre Peninsula electorate, etc.

The people of Summertown (which I think is now in Bragg) have little geographically in common with the fine residents of Beaumont.

And what was it you wanted me to specifically look at on Playmander by the way?

Regards, Michael ^talk 02:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although multi-member works better with a minimum of 5 and preferably 6 - this may require growing the parliament a little (I've often advocated such strategies for my home state of Western Australia). In cases such as outer rural areas, single-member works better as there's pretty much no other way to ensure adequate representation. Orderinchaos 09:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

From my end, less members = less government. I like small parliaments. But I am sure many young ambitious politicos would rather larger ones so they can potentially enjoy their parliamentary pay, staffers, and pension. As for the Playmander, I thought it was explained that the weighting and such was all done to placate the country part of the (to be) LCL. It was all them, and it was instituted under Butler. That is in the article, yes? Regards, Michael ^talk 10:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Six members, what is this, the senate? The major parties would never agree to that for obvious reasons. FYI SA had preferential 1, 2 and 3 member electorates prior to 1936, with 46 members total. Obviously today due to population increases it would need to be a bit higher. Also the SEO cite I gave earlier regarding the 2007 redistributions talks about the need for multi member. Timeshift (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's buried in the document, the only ref I can find in there is the Electoral Reform Society's submission - they have PR as a core principle and it appears the SEO are merely reporting what they submitted. As for more - yes, the major parties wouldn't like it for various reasons, and it would result in more coalition governments, but it would also make the minor parties accountable. As we can see with the present federal Coalition opposition making promises it doesn't have to even try and keep with money it doesn't have to worry about because it won't be anywhere near power for some time, accountability is a good thing and we might even see some pragmatic politics within the major parties as has been seen in the ACT and in New Zealand in particular. Orderinchaos 16:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard events

Hi Timeshift. I made a list of the important events that are currently missing from the Howard article here. Maybe you could look at the list, or add to it, or let me know if you think it is reasonable. Also, the POV tag keeps getting removed. Do you think the article is now balanced? Or is more work needed until we reach a non-POV state? thanks, --Lester 01:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Election tables

Sadly, the tables will need some reformatting to work for the Senate (I'm not an expert so it may take a little while). The reason the LibNat Coalition wasn't working was because of the notes; perhaps there's another way of doing that? Frickeg (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I just check ...

Per this comment at User talk:C.Marsh b.Lillee that you don't disagree with the suggestion I put forward (which I would still want confirmed by checkuser)? Sorry for the double negative. Another admin has now blocked the two accoounts indefinitely based on my arguments and I would hate to see miscarriage of justice done if I have got it wrong. I assume your comment means you thought he could be the same user. --Matilda ^talk 05:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the contributions, the style of writing, the specific targetting... i'm sure its PJ. I was suspicious from my first interaction with the user however I couldn't put any face to the name, metaphorically speaking. Timeshift (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - it didn't dawn on me straight away that sockpuppetry explained his comment at 3RRN (bit slow) but his comments were weird under any other circumstances. I hadn't checked the contribution history of the two users much - that both had contributed say to the Rudd article was not much to pin anything on given its a hot Australian topic and if you are an Australian editor you are quite likely to be interested ...

I would suggest that if you see another user with similar editing style it would be acceptable to suspect sockpuppetry given he appears to have tried it at least once - we will see what checkuser comes back with. Regards Matilda ^talk 05:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember, about a year ago, that Mr PJ was boasting that he was using 2 internet accounts. If he resurfaces, it may not be on the same IP address.--Lester 05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He was sprung this time not because of an IP similarity though ... The Duck test is allowed. If you suspect somebody feel free to share your concerns. --Matilda ^talk 06:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Post-2007 polling charts

Hi Timeshift.

Sorry to take so long to reply. I might end up having time to make the charts some time soon, now. In the meantime, tables would be better than nothing. In fact, if you could make up the tables so that I can see them (in the article or otherwise), it might save me some time when I get around to the graphs. JPD (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mike Rann article

You seem to be doing a lot of edits on the Mike Rann article. Are you sure you aren't somehow affiliated with him? There is a NPOV policy on Wikipedia. This is in perspective of the amount of "media advisors" he has. Wikipedia is not a publicity tool. -Amylee243 (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That comment isn't even worth a reply. No I am not affiliated with any political person or party. Go away. Timeshift (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

New right article

Hi, you objected to an addition to the above page from me. I'm a new user so id like to know how i can make it OK. It seems to be a problem with referencing. The information that i attempted to put up i can reference from a book published by key academics of the think tank i was writing about. Do i simply reference the whole overview at the end with a single sitation or each sentence? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdavidos (talk • contribs) 08:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Read the above links. The current content is balanced. Your content, whilst I agree somewhat and am a Greens/Labor voter, is still quite slanted and biased and negative toward the issue. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Timeshift (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bdavidos"

This completely surprises and offends me. How can an entry on an established body of thought in Australia that falls under 'new right' be a matter of bias? Thats like me saying that an entry on the greens or a left wing movement is bias because the movements themselves take an ideological standpoint. How can you "agree somewhat" to an entry on something? I wasn't going on a rant about society, i was attempting to presenting the views of the Australian New Right objectively, which naturally run contrary to modern social ideology. If i reference correctly will it be fine?

updated

Hi, I have updated the map up to the last election as you requested. Regards --Roke 01:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

no problem, its updated now too --Roke 06:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Hanson-Young

Your constant revisions of my edits are bordering on immature. There's no evidence that Sarah Hanson-Young was born in Orbost, so theoretically she could have been born anywhere. The fact that she is no longer working for Amnesty is self-evident. There is no burden of proof for either of these changes. Anothermononym (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I say again, there is no evidence she was born in Orbost. Your assumptions have been proven wrong. Unless you want to be banned from Wikipedia I suggest you cease this pig-headed type of behaviour. Anothermononym (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Anothermononym, welcome. Timeshift9 please read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. If you're so worried about his/her oh-so-subversive edits (shock horror, changed her birthplace and updated her employment status), try reporting him/her and see how far you get. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothermononym (talk • contribs)

I don't know why you'd even bother to raise this with me Peter. He knows what he did. Timeshift (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit history shows what s/he did. S/he modified her birthdate and employment status. These were clearly good faith edits, and your response ("cease edit warring" when you were doing the same; "lol, you're a newbie, you know nothing") was completely inappropriate. You violated WP:BITE and WP:AGF. You also violated WP:3RR on Sarah Hanson-Young on June 30. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Diglibs2 images

Hi Timeshift9

Thanks for your feedback regarding the placement of images in various articles.

The 'diglibs2' account was set up as a learning exercise for library students. I am sure the students have learned a great deal from this exercise and will be more careful about the placement of images in articles in the future. --Diglibs2 (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Downer

Have a look at my most recent edit to Alexander Downer. Just like Stanley Bruce has the epithet of the only PM to be ousted out of parliament (well, at least up until recently), Downer holds the records of being the shortest term of any Liberal leader, and also the least popular Liberal leader ever in opinion polls. The least popular title is sourced to a Peter Hartcher article in the SMH. It's worth reading, as there are lots of facts about Downer in there. Because it has already been used as a reference at the top of the article, it makes it easier to reference it multiple times. Is "least popular Liberal leader" too harsh to say about Downer? --Lester 03:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reword it as you see fit. Though I think the reference is worth keeping. --Lester 03:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FT/Downer

No problem. In turn, thank you for correcting my blunder in Division of Mayo (I've fixed the members table too now). I guess we'll have to put up with him for another week. Frickeg (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that link was right? They're both your edits! Frickeg (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I see. I'm thoroughly ashamed of myself! Frickeg (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul Keating

There's some funny business going on over there - maybe you could have look? I reverted blatant vandalism on the talk page, but left the main space changes for the time being where apparently good (but largely unreferenced) info has been removed and replaced with a sloppy addition. The chronology is shot to pieces but there might be some good stuff added so I was reluctant to merely revert. Let me know what you think. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwanted Advice

Although you probably already hate my guts and may not be interested in any advice, it may behoove you to read User:Videmus_Omnia/Requesting_free_content. Cheers, WilyD 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How did you guess? Timeshift (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should take Malcolm Fraser, Andrew Peacock and Steele Hall to DRV, but it would be hard to argue the rest. Orderinchaos 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Our friend is at it again - see Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_July_10 at the bottom (multiple entries, some of them perhaps justified (the Watson one, for example, which I'm not going to oppose) but others blatantly ridiculous and nonsensical. This deletionism has got to stop. And BQZip who argues delete for just about everything on that page openly admits he knows nothing about copyright! What a surprise... JRG (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The banned editor is back

Hi Timeshift. Lift the cloak off Madingogo (talk · contribs), and you'll find the notorious banned editor, Prester John (talk · contribs). He took my user page formatting, then preceeded to go down my contributions list, editing out all my contributions. Account set up purely for harrassment. --Lester 04:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah! I had a strong feeling it was a sock based on the edits. Banned again! Will the loser ever get it... Timeshift (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

He's just been blocked, but take a look at the army of socks that has appeared here. It began after I deleted a derogatory comment of Prester's on the Lyall Howard talk page, which set off a chain reaction of events, beginning with that article being listed for deletion, and then the attack of the sock puppets. --Lester 15:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for your information, there is another Prester John sock on the loose. This time under the name Hypopostumus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He hasn't been blocked yet, so it may pay for everyone to keep an eye out before he does too much damage. --Lester 04:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And, User:Putz removal - going thru all my contribs. ie, U2, Indonesia and OZ politics stuff. --Merbabu (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You asked at User talk Lester: So when's he being banned? 06:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban : If no uninvolved administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned. He has been blocked indefinitely and nobody is advocating unblocking. --Matilda ^talk 00:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - are use sure Seendcleeve (talk · contribs) is PJ? (I saw your edit summary). He first registered in 2006 but has certainly only reappeared. it makes sense but I am less familiar with PJ's contribution pattern and this looks like a good faith editor. I think you can't assume all edits on topic articles are vandals. Did PJ have an interest in submarines? sendcleeve certainly has over a long period of time.--Matilda ^talk 00:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sports Rorts Affair

Moved to article's talk page. Timeshift (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"of Jewish descent" does not mean "Jewish"

I created "of Jewish descent" category for those people who have Jewish ancestry and are not Jewish nor practicing Jews. So before you make any incorrect comments, please read between the lines. --CatonB (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me why is it that Don Lane has "Australian of American descent"? Why is it that Gustav Nossal is a "Jewish refugee" when he is not Jewish? Please explain??? --CatonB (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to that, I do not care if you do not like being called "of x descent" - the fact of the matter is that Nicola Roxon has Jewish ancestry whether you like it or not. --CatonB (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Lyall

Hi Timeshift. I noticed you recently made a comment at the Lyall Howard AfD page, arguing for the article to be deleted. I want to ask you why you about what (if anything) could be done to improve the article to meet your standards. Usually, the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability is to have major references about the subject. If I go out and search for more info and references to demonstrate notability, is it possible it may satisfy your requirements? --Lester 22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Corey Delaney/Worthington is a perfect example of how refs themselves don't establish noteability. Timeshift (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Revenue Tariff Party and others

Yep - just nominating George Colbran for deletion, then I'll get to it. Frickeg (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done Revenue Tariff - any others specifically in mind? I'm as big a citation fan as anyone, but the ones (like George Gray (Australian politician)) that are a bit more substantial and use ADB as their sole reference seem to me not to need them so much; you'd just be repeating a single reference over and over. That's just my opinion. And others (like Ex-Service, Service and Veterans Party) are really just placeholders because I couldn't find anything at all on them but needed to get rid of the red link on election pages. Still - if any others spring to mind, I'll have a go. Frickeg (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I get you now (I'm not fond of them either). I'll just go through my "pages created" page parties section and that should get them. Frickeg (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got the worst of them. There are still a couple without but I have to finish for today and they were proving stubborn so perhaps I'll get to them another time. Frickeg (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The format of my comments with bullet points or not

I am happy to indent (and do so) but I like to preface my remarks with bullets. I have never seen it suggested that it was not OK before. I would suggest that we should be allowed some leeway in our stylistic preferences --Matilda ^talk 07:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

One Parliament for Australia

Bother - that UWA search is the only thing the web has to say about them. My own hard copy resources are nowhere near comprehensive enough to cover such a minor party. Even worse, Psephos says here that they were called "One People for Australia". The UWA doesn't mention this. Would a cite to the search page (the link above) be sufficient until something else comes up? (And I am unclear as to what they stood for myself. I created the page mainly to help keep the templates for the election results tidy.) Frickeg (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting a cite? Frickeg (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Move of John McPherson

Would you please consider moving John McPherson back to John McPherson (Australian politician), then John McPherson (disambiguation) can be moved to John McPherson. There are currently 4 people of that name, the Australian politician, a US senator, a Canadian politician and a Scottish footballer and in my opinion none of these can be considered the primary John McPherson. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can you point me to the discussion of this move? All I can find is the db move template {{db-move|John McPherson|19th century 1st South Australian Labor leader in a governing coalition more important than a 19th century scottish footballer}} which makes no mention of the US senator or the Canadian politician. Tassedethe (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I point you to what Wikipedia has to say on the subject of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE? I'd say that it is not clear that "the well known primary meaning" would apply to the Australian politician. He may have been leader of the Labor party, but that is at a provincial level, so the US senator, a national level postition, would trump that. But I am not arguing for the US senator to be at John McPherson, by putting the dab page there it ensures that no particular article is promoted at the expenses of others, and aids disambiguating links from other pages. At the moment a large number of the incoming links to John McPherson are obviously meant to be pointing at one of the other people (a further argument that he is not the primary meaning). Tassedethe (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Australia

The reason I object to this template being used so frequently is because the vast majority of its content is completely irrelevant in most of the places where it is used. While I see your point about being able to switch between current elections, perhaps that needs a template of its own: it makes no sense to me to have a template dominated by links to things like to the Governor-General, the federal Senate, a bunch of federal elections and the High Court for an election to a territory parliament on which none of these have any bearing. This is all the more so because it dwarfs the smaller and more relevant NT Politics and NT elections template.

I think we'd be better getting rid of the entire template, honestly - having an Australian political parties template, a current elections template, a federal elections template, and a general governance topics template would get rid of the problem of having a general template that's irrelevant in 95% of the cases that it's used. Rebecca (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Useful for what? What is the relevance of the Governor-General, the federal Senate, the High Court, or a list of federal elections to someone looking for information on the territory election - as opposed to the other templates, a list of territory elections, and a list of topics actually relevant to Northern Territory politics? Rebecca (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah

Matt Prices's ghost could write better in invisible ink than he could he's a barrow with a purpose - and may it get tipped somewhere other than on wikipedia which he probably hasnt even looked at in a year. And nah you can't - Perth water is some of the most chlorinated in australia - try drinking seawater if you want - cheers SatuSuro 08:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you gotta realise a lot of journos dont like wikipedia as it challenges their claim to authority over knowledge and information and as a consequence the journos actually get into their own version of the the last phrase in your message you sent me - simply cos they have problems adjusting to the fact that their traditional mode of power as brokers of information to the general population is now seriously challenged and in some cases seriously eroded - as for claims for the murdoch press at least it tells where the lies come from - 'the west' doesnt even source its wire sources anymore - so there is no idea which wire services they are misrepresenting from :( SatuSuro 08:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I now realise why i im not in the plot-thickens project :) - gawd you could turn a coke can into an opera mate - I am talking about journos and not you, nor am I in any way attempting to paraphrase you - and any news/publicity is better than no news is not my idea of good journalism - he has a total misrepresntation - as if jimbos visit had anything to do with the standards of the australia project is an utter rubbish associaton and as both the mat's - (matilda and mattingbn in homage to our late matt price obviously (fact) ) - pointed out he misrepresented what he tried to recount - that to me is where the issue needs to go - keeping vigilant re errors - not being happy some dumb publicity has been got. Oh well pass the seawater, I'll need it to douse your fire mate SatuSuro 08:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK so my sollipsistic hyperbole (so commonly used by aged politicians to boot, or should that be be sic in my case) widely missed the mark - dont worry - I am sure you'll keep the politics and the oz projects up to standard - my brief wandering in this arvo was simply my disbelief at one small newspaper story - I better get back to my cat tagging - the squeel from the categories as they get their NA changed to cat is clearly my music of choice :) SatuSuro 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

God help us if it really starts happening - we simply dont have the numbers to cope if they really started at all the same time methinks SatuSuro 09:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Point I made with my way of saying it water or not is that the way kerr presented it in his reference to things long passed is that if the staffers get into it - they have been given wrong information in the first place - and the collections and compounding of it all bits of wrong information is gonna make life in the PlOt Thickns project a bit of a nightmare department if the members watch lists are more than 10 :) SatuSuro 09:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a template needs to be made to respond to obvious wrong idea edits or requests SatuSuro 09:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't tagged Nelson's page as the history doesn't reveal any edits that seem to correspond to this binge. We seem to have no article on the Parliamentary Library. Regards --Matilda ^talk 23:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Carr photo

• I appreciate that you have attempted to fix the permissions associated with Carr's photo but I am disputing it was his to release. --Matilda ^talk 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We don't need the photo - we have an excellent photo of Mr Carr as it is  :-) --Matilda ^talk 00:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Your attitude to copyright violations is not helpful - the copyright is held by the Commonwealth of Australia - it was not for User:Feadering or Kim Carr to release. For Carr to release he would need to post a photo to his own, non-Commonwealth-of-Australia website. --Matilda ^talk 01:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• The page you are relying on for permission to release the photo asserts Mr Carr took the photo himself - don't tell me you don't believe it? [1] --Matilda ^talk 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's none of our concern. And everyone else on the IfD agrees :) Timeshift (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lying about who took the picture and thus potentially concerning its release is indeed our concern both at Commons and at Wikipedia - I can't see how you can assert that the Commonwealth of Australia (entities don't take pictures - they can publish them) took the picture when the page you are relying on for release asserts Mr Carr took it himself even though the uploader denies it later saying the "photographer doesn't need to be attributed" and Kim Carr is the owner - later we get the CofA is the owner.[2]
Maybe I just really loathe being lied to by politicians and their flunkeys - I am quite shocked at your partisanship! I thought you had more integrity than to have a "nice" picture of Mr Carr regardless of the ethics. You say It is a momentous occasion for the first Australian government cabinet minister (perhaps any minister?) to have an official image legally on wikipedia. - He did it merely for vanity and not for the public good - no other images have been so released.
I am still waiting for my response from the website maintainers - I watch with interest as to whether the page stays there. As well as asking how it was released and compatible with CofA copyright restrictions, I pointed out to them the falsehood about the self-portrait statement. The fact that I care and no-one else does doesn't worry me.
I note also at the IfD that at least one user observed we don't host stuff when we can get away with it. We host stuff when it's freely licensed. He didn't !vote. Another user has !voted delete as the uploader uploaded a higher resolution image (although he his deletion !vote is accompanied by replace it with the one cited in the source information ) Accordingly I have now tagged the image for Commons:Incomplete license . --Matilda ^talk 00:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't Matilda got anything better to do?? I doubt there would be so much talk about this photo even if we were in court. I have found out the only reason why the resolution is different is because the larger photo did not fit on the website. Also this photo is freely available, it is distributed along with the ministers press releases.Feadering (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

While there might have been a copyright issue without the formal release on innovation.gov.au, the circumstances in which it has been disseminated clearly makes it a CC free use image and our volunteers are grateful to the Minister's office for doing this (it's a win-win really, as it means he gets a decent photo on his article instead of a paparazzi job.) Orderinchaos 09:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Party Member?

When did you join the Liberal party? :-) [3]. I don't think User:Truthreader got my memo about 3RR --Surturz (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, Liberal Party has never done well in opposition (The Dismissal being a dubious exception). Dunno if you are old enough to remember how poorly they fared during the Hawke-Keating years. ;-) --Surturz (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't going for laughs

But glad to get one on that topic JimZDP (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you both know that the comment, and giggling at it weren't appropriate. I've removed both from the talk page; please don't do it again. Shell ^babelfish 13:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bernardi

[4] Fair comment. I mistakenly read the edit as simple IP vandalism. Thanks. Moondyne 01:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User page

Hi TS, just reading your user page, while its interesting, its not appropriate as its a copyright violation can you please remove the news blurbs on the editing if Wikipedia by politicians. Suggest that since this hasnt recieved an article at Wikinews maybe you like to write one there instead. Gnangarra 11:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It all needs to go copyright material is prohibited on your User page and as per Wikipedia:NOT#BLOG your user page isnt a blog, please remove it I'd hate to see another admin notice this discussion and come down hard on you. Gnangarra 11:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The image issue

The main point here is we're trying to convince MPs to donate pictures to Wikipedia. If they do so and then we restore the original unflattering images back anyway (the getting rid of which was most likely at least part of their reason for donation to begin with), it defeats the whole point of the exercise and discourages other MPs from joining the ones that already have provided these to us. It's a matter of building relationships of trust - and allows us to get professional photos we couldn't source if we tried. If no other photo is available, then we use what we have when it's freely available. Orderinchaos 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when do we let them dictate what is in their articles? Timeshift (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rudd4-crop.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rudd4-crop.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 14:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:ItsTimeSpeech.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ItsTimeSpeech.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:GoughMargaret.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GoughMargaret.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Damiens.rf

I'm thinking of making a complaint about Damiens.rf. I'm fed up with his spurious deletion nominations - he appears to be targeting Australian politics articles and Australian editors. These debates defy common sense, are distorting Wikipedia articles without out of date pictures that do not reflect people's appearance when they were in power and are supported by ignorant moderators that don't understand Australian history. The most recent deletion nominations of Dunstan and Whitlam's It's Time speech defy belief. If this continues I am going to stop editing here - I'm not going to support a site where common sense is thrown out the window at the expense of some idiotically-interpreted policy which doesn't even accord with law. Any suggestions would be welcome. (On the other hand, some barrister uploaded a free photo of Murray Gleeson, which is good news!) JRG (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem though is that Wikipedia does not have a blanket ban on non-free images. If that was the case (which some editors actually do want) then we wouldn't have a choice, but the fact that there are allowances for non-free images means that deletionists need to respect that and stop bringing in blanket non-free bans via the back door. Damiens.rf's latest nominations are extremely spurious to say the least, and I think it's about time that someone told him he needs to stop - an official complaint seems the best way to do that. I'd like him banned for 6 months from deleting any image or page. JRG (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:BobHazel.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BobHazel.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 04:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Polly ticks

While I do enjoy reading your comments can I suggest starting a blog to vent them? I do not blog personally (I used to) but I find it a good output for thoughts. Certainly you have much to talk about. And as for the current Libnomics, it's fairly atrocious if I can say so myself. High interest rates at this point are a good thing for bank solvency as they need the cash to stay in business -- they're about to be bit by a bunch of bad debts and need the buffer. Without banks being solvent there will be no home loans, or any loans, and we'd all be screwed, Liberal, Labor and miscellaneous alike. Michael ^talk 11:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I used to blog as well, it's not only quite interesting becoming part of that community and occasionally having dealings with the regular media (a couple of my pieces on various things got relicensed) but is also a very interesting retrospective about one's own thoughts. I used to be more ideologically left-wing than I am today and it shows through in the choice of things and style in which I wrote back in 2001-02. Orderinchaos 08:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

After having another look at your u/p can I suggest the removing or toning down of some of the content? For your own sake, at least — do think what would happen if a newspaper had a look at that page, and then took a look at your edit history. What an article they could write. Michael ^talk 06:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Politically, i'm a nobody. They couldn't write anything. I'm just another wikipedia user. Almost all of the prior content has been removed to make way for new content currently there. I can't believe the Liberal leadership is pending the release of a book - what a bizarre leadership situation for the coalition that outranks even the Hawke/Keating years. And it took less than a year! Timeshift (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image licensing

Thanks for the advice re Jamo pic. I'll review the licence termes and be much more careful in future. This licensing is very complex and confusing. I may release lower-res versions for free use but don't want to allow vandalistic liberties with unique creative shots such as this. Can you recommend an alternative licence for this purpose? If necessary I may have to withdraw the condition and the pic altogether. Cheers 19:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[signature added again--Bjenks (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)]

Further to above, I now see that CC licences are not revocable and that There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here, so that will have to stay as is. However, if what you want is a decent frame of Jamo alone, I'll undertake to make a better one available than you could crop from the present pic. OK? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your goodwill is greatly appreciated. The alert will be of great value in making future decisions about many more such quaint, ancient images. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Stolen generation

I notice you've reverted twice the inclusion of the image, yet your arguing for its exclusion in discussions on the Kevin rudd page. Anyway I think you should be reacquaint yourself with 3R. You said the fickr editor has contacted OTRS this is good it should be resolved shortly anyway. Gnangarra 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd Official Photograph

I object to the official photograph of Kevin Rudd being removed. This official image is far better than the one used at present, and as it is a public domain, being a promotional photo from an advertisement, press kit, or other promotional source, photograph there should be no copyright concerns, as it exists for promotional purposes. As such, it is in the best interest of the copyright holder that it be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foundationexpo88 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. I will contact the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for the necessary copyright permission.Foundationexpo88 (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Foundationexpo88

Template:Leaders of the Liberal Party of Australia

Above is now semi-protected to stop ongoing edit warring there. Consensus for change needs to come out of discussion on the template talk page. Moondyne 14:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou :) Timeshift (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Related Links on the Family First page

When you say "we do not need Family First linked, it is already in the lead", what are you exactly referring to? For instnace, Dennis Hood is the party leader for Family First. Steve Fielding, Robert Brokenshire, and Bob Day are the other key players. Just as Kevin Rudd is a related page to Julia Gillard, so should one Family First politician to another, for the party only has a few key players too.203.122.240.136 (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not in any way affiliated with Family First. Obviously, you have a Neutral Point of View problem. If this is the case, please resist making any edits to Family First pages. It seems like other people have also had issues with you, from the Mike Rann talk page.203.122.240.136 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because you have been here for years doesn't mean that you are somehow superior to newer users. You seem to love telling people they are wrong, and reverting people's edits in order to get your own way with edits to the page. The only issue is not many people supporting these people are editing these pages, which allow you and the other editors to write on with spin. As a new user, I am not entirely sure of what constitutes related pages and am editing in good will. For you to take such a non-lighthearted approach is unneeded and rather rude.203.122.240.136 (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bob.hawke.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bob.hawke.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:John McEwen.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:John McEwen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 15:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bill hayden.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bill hayden.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:BillHayden.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BillHayden.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg

A deletion review of Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg has been requested. Since you were involved in the IfD for it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

First Rudd Ministry

Where is the place for "that"? Ottre (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Two things. Oakes' coverage of the 2007 federal election has been widely acclaimed, so his "subjective opinion" satisfies WP:RS, and, unless you're not telling me something, there is no more appropriate article to insert an apt summary of the formation of the Rudd administration. Ottre (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it absolutely belongs in the encyclopedia. Just as much as "the Prime Minister conceded defeat in 2011..." should conclude the article's introduction. Feel free to take this to WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, but you are going to be reverted for violating WP:NPOV. The summary doesn't suggest that the government is autocratic in any way, but that's what you're thinking, right? Ottre (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bruce Flegg.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bruce Flegg.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:BHaydenBook.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BHaydenBook.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:MalcolmTamara.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MalcolmTamara.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 11:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:MalcFras97.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MalcFras97.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

202.14.81.49

Thanks for fixing up the articles. Pity that 202.14.81.49 didn't look it up before removing content and insulting me. Bidgee (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Chipp

Hi Timeshift, I took the image out of Don Chipp, and the Democrats article as I'd deleted it after the deletion discussion. I thought the free image (of Don more as I remember him - unkempt and smiling) was then better than no image at all. I don't mind either way. I'm just annoyed, in retrospect, that when I met Don and Janine Haines I didn't take a blasted photo...never thought I'd have a use for it - Peripitus (Talk) 07:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

protection KR

I had been protected for almost 12 months and was removed, if I had given it indefinite it would be removed agian fairly quickly after a month the problems will return then there a reason(with history) to say well we tried short term protection and it just returns this needs indef semi. Gnangarra 10:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Northern Territory election

Up-to-date results: http://notes.nt.gov.au/nteo/Electorl.nsf?OpenDatabase Mrodowicz (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I should add: go to "Election Results" then "Vote summary" (as these pages share same address) Mrodowicz (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

S.57

Yep, there's a lot to know, and it's all too easy to forget the intermediate steps in the process. Why, I myself occasionally forget things. Hard to believe, I know, but it's true.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah

Couldt give a codswallop whether it was a lib or lab - didnt even bother to look - and nah anyone can vandalise - ther's no credit for anything like that SatuSuro 11:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Denial is not a river in egypt, vandals are not the contemporaires of the visigoths (unless you have black hair and black ear studs) :( SatuSuro 11:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:JimTurnour.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:JimTurnour.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift - can you please contact Jim Turnour's office and ask (1) whether the image here (link broken now) was under a free license or public domain license, and (2) if not, whether we can have a picture of him for Wikipedia (and if so, whether he can send an email to OTRS confirming it is indeed free). Our idiotical friend is making spurious nominations again. This is really important - don't let this get deleted because I won't be able to get it back again once it's gone. IfD is here. Thanks. JRG (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've saved it to my hard disk. Orderinchaos 23:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lyons/Hughes

Good Lord, how uncharacteristically silly of me. I did have a cite for this, but it just shows you can't believe everything you read. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I’d never really focussed much on that era, but I see that the Nationalists lost their majority in 1922 and had to form a coalition with the Country Party in order to stay in government, the price of which was Hughes’s resignation as leader and PM. It’s the only time in our history a coalition was formed after an election in order to maintain a parliamentary majority previously held by a single party. Hughes’s deputy Stanley Bruce became the PM; so while it could be said that Hughes’s party “won” the election, Hughes himself was a loser. Another interpretation is that Hughes did in fact remain PM after the election (albeit only for a short period; he may as well have lost the election from this point of view because all defeated incumbent PMs stay in office for a short period until the new PM is sworn in). Which ever way you look at it, it was very much a qualified win as far as Hughes was concerned; although I'm sure his party was happy to stay in power.
• The first time an existing coalition under the same leader of the dominant party won 3 elections on the trot was 1937 (Lyons/Page). Menzies/Fadden (1949, 1951, 1954), Fraser/Anthony (1975, 1977, 1980) and Howard (1996, 1998, 2001; with Fisher for the first 2, Anderson for 2001) all repeated this effort.
• The first and only time a single party under the same leader won 3 elections on the trot was not till 1987 (Hawke – Labor).
• I also see that Howard is our only PM who ticked all the boxes: lost an election from Opposition (1987), won an election from Opposition (1996), won elections in government (1998, 2001, 2004), and lost an election as incumbent PM (2007). Fascinating when you start to analyse some of these things. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

That's quite rich considering it is you who is removing content and you who will not take the democratic means of talk page discussion which was being had, with a fact tag on the disputed content. Timeshift (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You have made three reversions. Also note that I was being kind in not drawing out your argument, as any form of talk page discussion is going to come back to his biography. Subject is not politically third way. Ottre (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Graduates of the parliamentary library school of Wikidness

Could this be another one, just come off the production line? --Lester 03:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I come across these often. Not being from the parl lib IP though, it's harder to determine if there is a WP:COI issue. Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Norman Foster (Australian politician)

I must have got it from the Labor Herald article which was apparently accessible from the ALP site then (but not now). I presume the actual numbers are available from Adam Carr's web site if not eleswhere.--Grahame (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nifty nat from nsw.jpg

Yes of course it was taken by me. You will note from the gallery on my user page that I take such photos. Rees is my local member. He was visiting Metella Road PS for the prize giving last year. As he was leaving I accosted him for two reasons. The first to tell him of my negative opinions as to electricity privatisation and second was to ask him for a "shot for Wikipedia". I had intended to write an article but a) I am indolent and b) there is not too much about the place (that is verifiable) about him. So the shot has been composting on my hard disk waiting for this opportunity. Funnily enough I emailed him a couple of weeks ago rejoicing at the demise of the electricity sell off and opining that the "good news" was that he would soon be premier. Never have I been so prescient. I am off to try and pick some Lotto numbers. Albatross2147 (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter Garrett

You may be a little moist re. Midnight Oil and GreenPeace, but Garrett's rejection of the coal mine was well reported in the press on 5 September. You're not really one to talk about "controversy". Educate your self here http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Waratah-Coal-Inc-TSX-VENTURE-WCI-896742.html and here http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a6pFOEw4tKyg&refer=canada and here http://www.waratahcoal.com/documents/20080905-WCIrelease-ResponsetoFederalMinisterforEnvironment-Website_000.pdf.Rudykruger (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Try to WP:AGF. I had already spoken with an admin upon the first removal and they agreed it shouldn't be there. But hey, if you're right, take it to Garrett's talk page and gain agreement from other wikipedia users, which will allow you to override me. Enjoy :) Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good faith is the edit that added Peter Garrett's rejection of "Australia's largest coal project" as declared by the QLD government on July 15, 2008. Should his controversial (to green types) approvals of Port Phillip Bay's dredging or Beverly Uranium mine be significant enough to be included in Garrett's biography, his rejection of Waratah and the $5.2billion it brings with it is certainly an equally significant act.Rudykruger (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Queensland declared this project "a 50 to 100 year project" on July 15. The fact that Peter Garrett rejected this when looking after the Environment portfolio is a significant political event. The man has a GreenPeace background after all. I am sure Queensland will have something to say next week about losing a $5billion investment. Why should this not be part of his page? Rudykruger (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at today's NEWS.COM.AU http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24301135-462,00.html. This is a significant political statement by Garrett, and not merely him signing a memo as part of his day-to-day; this goes right back to his time as an activist with GreenPeace and other environmental groups. I quote "FEDERAL Environment Minister Peter Garrett has remained true to his pre-political career as an environmental lobbyist by stopping a proposed $5.3billion coal, rail and port development in central Queensland" and "Mr Garrett had a close connection with Shoalwater Bay in his capacity as president of the Australian Conservation Foundation and also as the singer with Midnight Oil" and "Mr Garrett said he had found the proposal to be "clearly unacceptable" under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which is only the third time such a criterion has been used to stop a development" and "Waratah Coal indicated it would challenge the decision in the Federal Court of Australia, arguing that Mr Garrett lacked the authority to ban the project. "Waratah considers its proposal should have been afforded the opportunity of scrutiny under a properly directed and formatted environmental impact study and its economic significance properly assessed," said Waratah Coal chief executive Peter Lynch". Rudykruger (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Turbulence at 3RR

Hello Timeshift9. See the recent entry over at WP:AN/3RR, in which your name was mentioned. In my opinion both parties are getting close to a violation, no matter who is right. Another admin has imposed protection of Peter Garrett. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chardonnay

It's an inner-city dweller, who was critical of John Howard during the Howard era. Maybe you are one? ;) --Lester 07:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Heheheee. I can just picture you now. Sitting on your balcony. Sipping Chardonnay whilst chatting about social inequities, overlooking the rabble on the street down below. You fit the bill entirely! When the right-wing commentators talk about the Chardonnay set, they're talking about you!!! Hmmm. Let me think. What are you going to do when Turnbull gets in? Isn't he social liberal and economic right? Doesn't he support LGBT rights? At least he makes everyone believe he does to scrape through the vote in his inner-city Oxford Street electorate in Sydney (a lot of Chardonnay gets drunk in that area). I'm sure Turnbull once said, somewhere in the past, that he supports ss marriage. This contrasts Rudd, who has said he is firmly opposed to it. It might blur the line between who is the social conservative, and who is the social Chardonnay drinker. --Lester 10:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I note no social differences between Turnbull and Nelson. I suspect Turnbull is bound by the majority Liberal right. Timeshift (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The CLP

A distinction has to be made between the Commonwealth Liberal Party and fusion. In an age prior to Commonwealth registration of political parties, the two parties sat together from 1909, but only competed under a single banner from the 1910 election. It's a valid interpretation to say that the party was founded in 1910, given that that was the first time the party competed in an election rather than simply forming a single caucus.

And even if not, I was off by one year -- hardly a capital offence. Black Regent (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point on the stub articles -- it's a critical shame, given their importance in shaping what modern politics looks like (in the long run). I have Ross McMullin's 'So Monstrous A Travesty' -- when I find time, I'll use the information to update the articles. Also, there's a book coming out soon on the centenary of fusion which will clear up the situation. Remember, party labels were VERY confused -- it really doesn't make sense to talk about 'parties' in the modern sense at all until 1910, which was the first time all the candidates competed under roughly similar party labels. Before that, it was essentially personalist politics -- you weren't a Protectionist or a Free Trader but a Deakinite or a Reidist. Cheerio. Black Regent (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

next election

I have changed over to Tbull...but can't get his picture right ! Any clues ?Feroshki (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The image needs cropping and re-uploading (to another file name). I'll do this later on today when I have the time. Timeshift (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jill Hall

I agree - I was saying I was assuming (perhaps excessive) good faith - not suggesting you weren't. I think the first comment probably wasn't a genuine attempt to make a contribution either, and contemplated simply removing it as you did but decided to give them a go. So 50/50 each way. If you feel strongly that neither of the IP comments are about genuine contributions, I won't object if you remove it again. Euryalus (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC).

US Government Debt

Comrade Timeshift! Some calculations on the US Government Debt that appear on my page might amuse you. --Surturz (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not your comrade. That implies socialism. The fact that Howard was a right-wing homophobic xenophobic non-core scaremongerer does not make me (or anyone else) socialist. That said, interesting. Timeshift (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Warren Truss.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Warren Truss.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:AndrenReport.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AndrenReport.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:RobinMillhouse.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:RobinMillhouse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Truthofmatterlores small.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Truthofmatterlores small.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Joint1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Joint1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:000 Tim-Fischer.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:000 Tim-Fischer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:CharlesBlunt.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CharlesBlunt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Australian federal election, 1975 leaders pics

Sorry, old chum, but on my screen the two pics are pushed out to the right so that they overlap and both faces are cut off vertically. By shrinking 'em, I was able to see all of both pics. I'll leave it to you, anyway. That page is off my list for a while. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Wp3691e.jpg

I can't help any more. Be travelling in Syd and Cbr till 23 Oct. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:BruceEastick.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BruceEastick.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: My American perspective

Well, hats off to you for that! I can only hope our own government catches up to you on that one day. But that would indeed make someone's atheism there rather non-notable! I'd eat my hat (in a celebratory fashion) if someone openly of that perspective ever came to a position of real political power over here. Ah well, c'est la vie. Thanks for informing me! - Vianello (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, not at all. I really quite envy countries who've at least managed to achieve a strong and respectful separation of church and state. The degree to which legislation and social momentum here favors one particular religion is quite dismaying and at times even quite worrisome. - Vianello (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, 3 works so we'll do 3

Hi. "reflist", "reflist|2" and "reflist|3" all produce the same output for me. (I'm using IE7.) Which browser are you using, and how does "reflist|3" look different to "reflist" and "reflist|2"? (Reply here if you prefer.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Using firefox 3.0.3 - reflist and reflist2 come up as reflist format, while reflist3 works fine. Bizarre I know. Timeshift (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

By "works fine", I presume you mean, "puts them into 3 columns" Pdfpdf (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)?

It's a known limitation with MediaWiki on IE7. I saw a discussion a while ago with SandyGeorgia and a few others discussing it, presumably they know more than we do about it :) A lot of other things like font sizes and some types of infoboxes don't work too well on IE7 either. Orderinchaos 13:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:John McEwen.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:John McEwen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Australian federal election, 1983

I reverted the extra 0.03. The problem is that the AEC 2PP table doesn't show the second decimal place, implying that it doesn't know the precision of the 2PP beyond one decimal place. The ALP 2PP in 1980 could've been anywhere between 49.59% and 49.64%, implying that the swing could've been +3.68% at most, or +3.79% at least. Adding the 0.03 at the end implies knowledge that we don't have: in general, when dealing with statistics that are shown with different trailing decimals, the course of action is to use the least decimal places shown. See false precision, significant figures and arithmetic precision. Kelvinc (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of this but I disagree, reverted, feel free to add a disclaimer at the bottom like the previous election pages do, if you so wish. 3.63 splits it down the middle. Timeshift (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Added disclaimer myself. Timeshift (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:CharlesBlunt.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CharlesBlunt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:CharlesBlunt.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CharlesBlunt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Chardonnay socialist

Hi Timeshift. Yes, you make a very good point about the party controlling the leader. Another name for this may be "puppet". But their leader resides in what is probably Australia's least conservative electorate. So if he steps to the left, his party will have his guts for garters, and if he steps to the right his local electorate will boot him out. Funny times. Cheers, Lester 06:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support and encouragement and great work on Wikipedia. I'm taking a lengthy break from Wiki (and am retiring under this username) but I may be back in the future. Please keep Damiens.rf watchlisted and report him if he takes advantage of anyone else - he does not deserve to edit on Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned and I can't stay on here while he is let loose. I'll still use commons so if I get any political photos (unlikely) I'll put them there. JRG (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Hi, I've now edited that entry with the appropriate citation. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcfc adelaide (talk • contribs) 01:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think you'll find it does pass the Notability and Weight criteria, but thanks for your concern. Dcfc adelaide —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Yes, we will see. Dcfc adelaide —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Stephen Conroy revert

Hi, Timeshift9,

I've undone your revert of Michael Malone's comments about Stephen Conroy, for two reasons:

1. The Michael Malone comment was specifically about Stephen Conroy, and as managing director of iiNet is a notable person
2. Why did you leave in Bevan Slattery's comments, which weren't actually about Stephen Conroy?

cojoco (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift

Get back to working for the constituents of West Torrens Dcfc adelaide (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift is neither right-wing enough nor Greek enough to be the person you believe him to be. As for me, I'm not even a South Australian - I think I've spent a grand total of 11 days in the state over various holidays. Orderinchaos 06:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Pffft. Dcfc adelaide (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! I aim eventually to create those sorts of pages for all of the federal elections, but I think that it might take some time. Those red links drive me nuts, but I don't think I'm prepared to take on state MPs just yet. What a huge task that would be! Frickeg (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Links on election pages

Adding the members link is not part of my plans, although I have no problem with it. I'm just adding the candidate ones as I do them. Frickeg (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Andrews (Australian politician)

You have got your information wrong. A couple of simple mistakes: Andrews is not a member of the Pontifical Council for the Laity - not any other Pontifical Council.

The Lyons Forum has not operated for many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortferg (talk • contribs) 02:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

According to his own profile at the John Paul II Institute, where he works, he is a member of the Pontifical Council. Is there anywhere authoritative that we can check? Orderinchaos 02:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we take this to Andrews' or Mortferg's talk page? Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

As you can see your edits are even covered by official warnings:

For an attempt of imposing the status quo policy (which is against the whole idea of Wikipedia, to make new edits and expand the articles not stall them in status quo like paper encyclopedia):

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Kevin Rudd. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

For removing information on protests (which some fanatical supporters of Rudd might not see as a good thing in the biography, even less his cabinet which seems to be editing the article):

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Kevin Rudd. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these warnings appears to apply to the actions taken by Timeshift - it's a content dispute. Orderinchaos 15:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Rudd article is changed extensively by many. I take issue with your edits. You are not WP:AGF. Your attitude toward me is deplorable. Take your concerns to the Kevin Rudd page. Your edits are disputed, thus while we sort through them, they should not be there. Timeshift (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Liberal webpage hacking of 1998

Timeshift, I have no online sources to back up what I wrote. But I was the person at the centre of the situation back in 1998, so my account is about as informed as it's possible to be. I also tried to be neutral in the description of what happened, so as to best answer your questions. Given my personal involvement, I also haven't deleted/amended anything in the article itself. If the item of the article is to be amended/removed, I wanted to make the facts known of what actually happened, and let others make the judgment call of whether it was worth inclusion. But as it currently stands, the section is erroneous (as it implied the hosting by the same ISP was related to the altering of the data) and I wanted to clear that up. Cheers DermottBanana (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For fun

You and User:Fyslee should tag team (see User_talk:Fyslee#Bizarre_diff). I seem to have annoyed both of you... :-) --Surturz (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I just found your Kevin Rudd edits blatently against wikipedia guidelines, and this opinion has been backed up by the wikipedia community. I always knew you pushed an agenda as your quote states, but never have I seen you be so obvious about it. Even though others agreed with me, it inspired me to find the quote where you said you push a POV, and I did, and put it on my user page as a quote of the year. And please don't edit my page, it is my page and not yours. I chose to quote only part of it, as the rest is out of context or sheer blather. What is important is that I haven't misquoted you - The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception - this cannot be taken out of context, it is what it is. Good day. Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please either provide my entire quote, or do not quote me at all. --Surturz (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am only quoting what you have written. You wrote it, did you not? I do not provide any commentary on it. It is simply a quote, and what you have said, which is that your contributions are POV, remains the same regardless of a partial or full quote. I don't believe I am required to quote in full, despite the fact the full quote is linked. Timeshift (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this compromise, you provide the full quote, and bold the bit you like? --Surturz (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How about no? No guidelines broken, my choice. Perhaps you regret admitting you edit in a POV fashion? Timeshift (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any rule broken. Otherwise we'd have to quote massive extracts every time we reply. It was a very interesting quote, though! --Lester 09:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Very revealing. Timeshift (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) FYI :User_talk:Orderinchaos#WP:NOTBLOG_violation --Surturz (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You always hurt the one you love :-) --Surturz (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Downer

Re: your recent edit. I'm sorry, I shouldn't laugh, it really isn't funny ...
Yes, WP does stretch one's patience, doesn't it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)