User talk:Timeshift9/Archive9

Australian Sex Party

Good point. And their website is well worth a look on it's own right. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Quota

No worries. Probably all that Tammy Jennings stuff coming back ... Frickeg (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And a random question, since I suspect you probably know more about this than I do - is it legal to scan photos from the parliamentary handbooks, i.e. are they in the public domain? (If they're pre-1955, that is.) Frickeg (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Re your last edit - please, please no ... Frickeg (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: polls

I'm a little busy tonight, but I'll try to update both graphs before I go to bed. I know you said there's no need to reply, but I just thought I'd let you know that I've subscribed to the Poll Bludger RSS feed, so I'm usually aware when there's been a new poll. Not that I don't enjoy getting new messages, it's just that usually I'm already on it.  -- Lear's Fool 11:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the new polls, I'll update the new Morgan numbers when I get the chance, but given PB says that the Newspoll is only half the final sample, I think I'll wait for the full result before putting that in. All the other Newspolls I've used have been full polls, we may as well keep it consistent.  -- Lear's Fool _sock 02:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll rant

Two things I don't think you've considered:

1. Marginals much more important than usual in this campaign - national swing is not as important
2. I reckon that once in the privacy of the polling booth, a lot of women will have trouble voting against the first female PM. ie. I think the actual election vote will favour the ALP more than the opinion polls suggest

So I guess I'm saying it will be a Labor win with a reduced majority :-( If Abbott pulls an upset though, it will be absolutely catastrophic for the ALP. Gillard will have to go... who would take over? To early for Rudd to come back. Tanner? Swan (lulz)?

For sheer dramah you'd have to hope for a hung parliament though! :-) --Surturz (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

On your first point, yes and no, once you start going above 51% 2PP it really does become hard to lose amongst 150 seats. Have you been keeping up with pollbludger? It seems the swings are not as big as you think. I suggest you do some research, Labor is on track to off-set losses. An example... ever thought Cowper would fall to Labor in 2010? :) Oh, and notice how Eden-Monaro is polling a solid swing TO Labor? :) On your second point, if this will be your justification for your darling Abbott losing the election, it's a pathetic one! It just goes to show Liberals really haven't learnt anything from their defeat. And parties do need to before they win government again. Just a thought :) And I don't think there'll be a hung parliament - the media LOVES talking about hung parliaments, it's sensationalism. We have had many close elections over the years, but no hung lower house since 1940. And can I ask, what is it about Liberal leaders? Why are they so incompetent? Look at 2007, the Labor camp was all pro-Rudd and anti-Howard. 2010, Liberals act like Labor committed genocide, and can't come to praise their leader, because like the rest of the Liberal leaders, they have the community attraction of a cockroach. Timeshift (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

dramah ftw! --Surturz (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Having read this, I think I'm gaining some insight/understanding of the significance of: "Thank goodness for the greens!" Pdfpdf (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Australian Greens Senators

Hi, I fixed the licenses for the images of Australian Greens Senators to the specific Australian version as stated in their website disclaimer. I think it's best we use the localized licenses when they are given - the unported version is compatible, but I'm not sure the original license provides for using a different variant unless a derivative work is created. Regards Hekerui (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverts on Bob Day's page

G'day Timeshift9,

I put in a load of effort adding a whole lot of valid, cited information to Bob Day's page and you just reverted the whole thing. Can you point out where I went wrong so that my hours of research have not gone to waste? For now, I'm putting back millionaire and removing some of the quotes and I hope this will be sufficient.

Before you do, can you tell me if you are familiar with wikipedia policies on editting wikipedia and specifically WP:BLP biography articles? The wording all seems rather borderline... sorry. Timeshift (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read those policies and hence why I spent so much time putting citations for all the information. I agree that the quoted text is a bit excessive so I'll reduce that down to a similar amount quoted from the SMH. I removed the term millionaire because it is not a referenced item in the article cited. (any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation)

The large blocks quoted from The Australian Conservative are specifically to counter the claims made in the SMH quotes already in the article which I left in there for balanced viewpoints. I'll cut those down and paraphrase some to reduce its quantity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScream7 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm really trying to do the right thing here and improve the page on Bob Day with a neutral tone. Can you point out specifically where I made an error in the Community section which you most recently reverted? It doesn't quote the conservative, has nearly excessive citations and maintains what I think is a neutral tone.TheScream7 (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what do you mean by "full of dud references" ? All of them are valid references in published reliable news sources. TheScream7 (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This statement proves you have not read wikipedia guidelines, nor have you taken on board what has already been said to you. Thanks for your time. Timeshift (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read the wikipedia guidlines on both WP:BLP and WP:RS and fully believe that the article meets those policies in every way. It's beginning to appear you are allowing your declared bias to prevent edits that add non-negative information to this article.

(Side note) Sorry 'bout the need for this[1]. Apparently you removed and I commented at the same moment, 'cause I never got an edit conflict message. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh God ...

I enforced absence during the coverage, and I don't think I have the heart to go through all that on my watchlist right now. Time for bed ... (thank goodness for the Greens, or I'd really be depressed). Frickeg (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what the context is, but I, too, feel something similar to: "(thank goodness for the Greens, or I'd really be depressed)." Pdfpdf (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it amusing that some seats have swung up to 10% to the ALP. The only whack against Labor was in QLD due to Rudd... NSW barely ended up swinging at all, nor the rest of the states. Seems business as usual bar QLD. I knew the unelectable Abbott on a dissatisfaction rating of 50% could never make majority government :) Eden Monaro stays Labor, and Labor clearly wins the 2PP vote. :) I predict a minority Labor government, which will actually be good for it! Fingers crossed. Oh, and a Green Senator elected in every state! WOOT!!! :D I am rather uncomfortable with the fortunes of the DLP in Vic and FFP in SA though... but the number of Green Senators will render them useless for this term :) The Libs were never going to win while they were so anti-Labor and quiet on the Liberal policy front. What Liberal could be impressed with these results? If I were a Liberal i'd be very embarrassed at the state of the party and the leadership. Menzies would be turning in his grave. Timeshift (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

epic lulz for all --Surturz (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

New Photos

I've been able to get 2 new photos released one of Gillard and one of Abbott - I don't really have time to add them (and do crops, etc) wherever the old ones are (though I've done some already), so could you help in this manner? Thanks. Connormah 04:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

On the same theme, I've managed to score a release from Kevin Rudd's office but am simply awaiting confirmation re licence terms. Once I have that, I'll upload it and forward the relevant email to OTRS. Orderinchaos 00:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Only now does he care, because he's not the current PM and wants to make his place in history. Typical. Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

His office probably also has a lot less to do! Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources in Australian Greens

You removed two paragraphs with sources and replaced them with unsourced ones. That's not how we do it, right? Please add sources. Hekerui (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed an incorrect paragraph with a source and replaced it with a correct paragraph with a source. I've added the other source, is this the big concern here? I really fail to see the issue. Timeshift (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you added two sources at the bottom while removing others in the lead, but there is nothing there about "first hung parliament since the 1940 federal election" in either. Hekerui (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Every election is thoroughly documented on wikipedia. There has been no hung parliament since 1940, I should know I created and referenced every election page. If you feel a need to reference that fact on that page then feel free. Timeshift (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Wikipedia is not a reliable source :) Hekerui (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Each election page is referenced. Timeshift (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(od)I think perhaps you didn't read my edit to Australian_federal_election,_2010, or the edit summary, properly. I am not saying no to a "hung parliament" as it certainly is one. I am saying that it is incorrect to call it the first such since 1940 because every time a Coalition government is elected, that is technically a hung parliament, as indicated by hung parliament. The Coalition is not a political party, but a coalition of two parties. The coalition has each time formed government because no single party had a majority, which is a hung parliament. My edit simply changed "the first hung parliament since 1940" to "a hung parliament", which your edit summary when reverting would actually indicate to be correct. I have reinstated my change. LowKey (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I read it, but I still disagree, and so do WP:RS. The coalition is such a solid long running one that nobody considers a coalition majority a hung parliament. As it was already there and suddenly you wish to change it, I suggest you form consensus. Timeshift (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

TimeShift9 is referring to a perception, not a fact. I agree with LowKey and disagree with TimeShift9. The fact is the Federal coalition is 2 parties (each with their own constitution) that have formed coalitions each time they needed to govern in a Hung Parliament. This is basic stuff. The Labor Party and Greens have formed a coalition without achieving a majority. In Queensland, the Liberals and Nationals legally merged to create the LNP. Factrules (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This is like the argument some put forth over the GG and PM. In theory the GG overrules the PM, but in practicality the PM does. The 2010 election was the first minority government since the 1940 election. The Liberal and National parties have federally been in a formal coalition for 99.9% of the entire 90 year existance of the Nats, that all WP:RS refers to Lib/Nat federal governments as a majority government, it's just base logic. The Liberal and National parties are in a formal coalition agreement, Labor and the Greens are not and have never been. The "C"oalition of the Liberals and Nationals is etymologically different to a "c"oalition minority government. You can disagree with me all you like but it doesn't make you correct. Timeshift (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sex Party

Regarding the Sex Party coming "close" to winning a seat in Queensland, I'm not sure about that. If you look at the ABC site, the ASP are the third-last-candidate excluded, but they're well behind the AFLP and the LNP, so from what I can see they didn't really come close at all. Frickeg (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly didn't even look at that, I just assumed. I'll remove it. Timeshift (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Timeshift, I have literally written out the reasons to block you for edit-warring. After my repeated notes on the talk page of Australian federal election, 2010, you went ahead with another reversion here. [2] By my count it is your sixth in less than 24 hours, pushing you well over the bright line. Combined with your history of edit-warring blocks there would ordinarily be absolutely no reason for you not to be blocked right now. The only thing that has stopped me from blocking you is that you have tried hard to reach a talk page consensus, the consensus is in your favour, and the editors concerned subsequently effectively consented to the reverts. But having consensus in your favour is no exception from the 3RR principle. You have breached it and have only avoided a block so far because there is discretion not to block for edit-warring and I'm exercising it very generously. Please heed this warning.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pendulum

Done. There weren't too many needing updating ... I think we need to find a unique colour for the Greens, though, since I'm not sure either they or the WA Nats would like being lumped together! Frickeg (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we've never had to have a Green in there before ... the problem is that we've used a lot of shades of green for the Nats. I'm thinking maybe more of a fluoro colour for the Greens though ... they won't need different shades as I don't expect we'll see a whole ton of Green seats any time soon (more's the pity). Frickeg (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Done

I just wanted to say well done and thank you for all your time, hard work and effort that you have put into the 2010 election. I don't know how to give medals or stars but you deserve one for all your hard effort. Well Done. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

NSW political photos

Hi, can you remember the names of the editor(s?) who made a habit of uploading photos of NSW liberal politicians with dodgy claims that they were their own work? Nick-D (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

KAPITALIST88 (talk · contribs) was one. There was another who was uploading photos of Tony Abbott claiming that they were their own work when they were actually Liberal Party press release photos published on Flikr - can you remember who they were? Nick-D (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember sorry, but Kapitalist was one. Timeshift (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:WAstate2010.gif

I changed legend to NPWA but I see that the thumb view is now stuffed for reasons I dont understand, possibly because I used a different font. Anyway, I've emailed Adam for some help. –Moondyne 02:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with it when compared to the other maps...? Timeshift (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Really-it must be my setup. Ah well. –Moondyne 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Prime minister

Re the recent edits at Prime minister, I thought you might like to see my comment at Talk:Prime minister#Weeding Prime Ministeral images to fully explain my reasons. —sroc (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Julia Gillard has never been the Prime Minister-elect has she has never lost her commission as Prime Minister. And what's this threatening tone that changing fantasy to fact is a violation of some Wikipedia policy? Newtaste (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Howard had it in 2004. Get over it. Timeshift (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That would also have been wrong of course. It will be irrelevant in a few days when Gillard continues to be PM with her new Cabinet and you change it to what it should be. Newtaste (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No comprendo

Hi. Any chance of an explanation of this edit? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Pascoe (Australian politician)

I've prodded this one, since there was no rejection raised at WT:AUP. Just letting you know as the creator. Frickeg (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The lulz I say

diff. read the edit summary. I nearly choked. --Surturz (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it distressing that these days I am more often than not siding with you against editors who seem bent on pushing irrelevant stylistic changes, such as hyphens and whether the inclusion of leaders' pictures violates WP:CRYSTAL. At least at the end of an edit war with you there would occasionally be some NPOV content inserted at the end of it all. Please, shove in some biased Abbott-hating article text somewhere so I can revert it for old times' sake. --Surturz (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've always been NPOV. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

More like nodding for nine seconds, if you look at the video, but why let the facts get in the way of "shit reporting"? Absolutely atrocious behaviour from the media, using the death of a soldier to score cheap points against a pollie. --Surturz (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Look at my user page. Look at the video link. 22 seconds of silence. Abbott said shit happens in response to afghanistan battles, the media advised him they'd interview him 2.5 weeks prior, it's the job of journalists to do this and the job of politicians to respond. Abbott completely and utterly killed his career with his response or lack thereof which was the real bombshell here. But our media... Timeshift (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I was timing the ABC version: [3]. Looks like they edited it. Seems you can't trust everything the Australian TV media presents. How can "the real bombshell" be his reaction to the issue? Surely the issue... is the issue? I wish the Australian Left would concern itself with matters of substance, rather than media crap. --Surturz (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read my user page? Do you just turn a blind eye to that? We concerned ourselves with birthday cakes and handshakes. Leaders have to prove their mettle, Abbott continues to show he is not PM material. He should step down. Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've given you the response you deserve :-D --Surturz (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And just like Abbott, you throw that non-answer at me to fill the void of speechlessness and rage ;-D How any self-respecting Liberal can support that Latham-outdoing gaffe-a-second baboon of a leader is beyond me. Timeshift (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

reply at my talk page. --Surturz (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How about being civil!

When you revert someone's edits the space given to you to make a comment is not meant as a forum to take a swipe at the editor making the original change. Please be civil. Ozdaren (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. That may sound a bit harsh. I just thought your commentary was a little direct. Ozdaren (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I make no apologies for being direct :) Timeshift (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why deny the Green Agreement

Timeshift, just a quick question. The Formal Agreement between Greens and Labor has been widely reported, and has played a pivotal role in returning Labor to Power. Why would you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.139.23 (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Form WP:CONSENSUS on the article's talk page if you wish to discuss it. The lead has been highly tuned, your point gives a POV to the Greens, it is not needed in the lead. The crossbench section has refs to the Greens agreement breakdown. Also your coalition but not a coalition wording is POV. Take it to the article talk page, I will discuss it no further here. Please form WP:CONSENSUS there. Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift, a coalition agreement is a formal agreement, legally binding and understood at common law to be as such, not a POV. Will move discussion to relevant page as I am new here, but if you intend to be direct, as you previously stated, perhaps you could also aim to be correct - they rhyme, it's fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomshanahan1983 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying the agreement. Timeshift (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaders section of Next Australian Election article

Hey, i enjoy a vigorous discussion, and I don't expect to change everyone's mind all at once, but I do suggest that it would be wiser of you if you took notice of a Discussion closed "hat". Insisting on having the last word when more polite editors are conforming with good practice will just aggravate those other editors. A little respect goes a long way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Dismissing our views with the supposed reason of not countering debating points, IMHO, was the worser offense and the one that occurred first, and repeatedly. Timeshift (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the discussion closed templates as there was no justification for them. The debating points have been countered (on both sides I think) and I ask you and others to please WP:AGF and allow an open discussion and be open to a new consensus if it occurs. –Moondyne 00:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you noting that both sides debated the others' points. Timeshift (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bob_Day

A discussion has begun at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bob_Day. Fred Talk 15:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!

Hi Timeshift9,

I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, it looks like you have a lot of expertise in Australian public policy and your insight and global persepctive would be appreciated on the project. I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no thanks. Timeshift (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Timeshift9_in_regard_to_Bob_Day concerns you. Vyeh (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Serious question

Can you explain your reasoning behind the (paraphrasing) 'weeks-long assumption that Bob Day was just whinging'? Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I too have bias but try to correct it when I recognize it. Fred Talk 00:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Even more serious

I began editing to article Bob Day to investigate charges that you were engaged in biased editing. I don't have any interest in Australian politics and only an abstract interest in the content of Bob Day. Fred Talk 00:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh that's gold! So you are saying that the article was always biased, you are biased, you ignored the bias due to your bias, but when you attempted to make a few edits you encountered my bias and the reason for the biased nature of the article? :D Timeshift (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I started feeling guilty about ignoring his complaints. Fred Talk 00:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2010

The Australian election candidate pages would be more useful if the successful candidates were highlighted, so that it would be clear who had won in each electorate. I'm approaching you on this because I think you're very familiar with both Australian politics and with Wikipedia formatting to know how to get it done. If you don't have the time or the inclination to do it, I would appreciate if you could show me how to highlight wiki text, and I will then do it myself. Thanks.Mrodowicz (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally share that view. Orderinchaos 05:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh God. I kind of agree myself, but it's not going to be as easy as that. I mean, how do we show "other" candidates who win, like Oakeshott, Windsor and Wilkie? And what about the Senate? If a way can be worked out, I'm happy to take this on myself. Frickeg (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I might handball this one on to you guys...! Timeshift (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think highlighting would be the most effective way to do it. However, if there are technical difficulties in achieving this, there may be alternative ways to do it, such as placing an asterisk next to the name of the successful candidate Mrodowicz (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Abbott quote for you

I think that you'll enjoy this:

"We won the election in every sense except we didn't form government"

Abbott has an article in the Sun Herald today where he's still claiming that the Coalition won more votes and seats than the ALP did. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Even today? What a complete and utter political deintellectualist. Timeshift (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an odd thing for Abbott to be crowing about - if the Liberals came out of the election ahead of Labor yet failed to win the support of the two key conservative-leaning independents, despite offering them a much more generous regional assistance package, what does this say about Abbott's negotiating skills and credibility? Nick-D (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Says nothing. Windsor as much admitted that they picked Labor because they were less likely to go to an early election. In other words, they were the weaker side and would need the independents more. [4] --Surturz (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Won't someone PLEASE think of the lulz!!!

"Swan, who seems to me the most limited individual to have occupied the treasurer's office since Jim Cairns's time...". :-D --Surturz (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. I actually personally favour a "big Australia", but I guess with the Greens ascendant we are going to see a lot more anti-immigration rhetoric.

"We didn't win, but we didn't lose!" :D I like the Greens ascendancy. They are like the Democrats rather than the DLP, as in, not too much of an issue and in many cases beneficial to policy and governance (I vote Green as you know). I think the Greens are only a temporary ascendancy (they beat the 1990 Democrat result by a whisker) due to the state of modern politics. I assume you read my 2pp/2cp uber rant in the 2010 election talk page and the parts about the Greens... you really didn't have much to say on that :) Timeshift (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know you voted Green, but I suspected. I did read your rant, and in one sense, I agree with it. I certainly think that most electors vote as if they are voting for the governing party rather than for a local representative. The media and the party leaders tend to foster this belief, as does the AEC's TPP count. I think this situation is unfortunate, really. It's a hard argument though to espouse the merits of responsible government (for example, I think Rudd's ousting was actually a demonstration of the merits of responsible government - in the US they are stuck with their president for 4 years).

I think you are selling the Greens a bit short. I think they are possibly a bit less of a flash-in-the-pan than the Democrats or the DLP, for the following reasons:

• Greens started as a party spontaneously, rather than simply as a breakaway party
• Greens have a distinct ideology
• Greens play hardball politics, they are not above the cut-and-thrust
• Green parties are sprouting up (hehe) over the world. Dems and DLP are just accidents of Australian History.

Of course, the Greens are picking up a lot of protest votes against the ALP, but their core of voters are not people simply disillusioned with the ALP, they are actually people that believe in the Green ideology. The medium term problem for the Australian Greens is that their party structure and many of their non-environment policies are old-school socialist, while a lot of their core support is from rich inner-city elites. It's a mystery to me why Greens supporters are the least likely to live near trees or have a garden. Middle-class guilt, I suppose. (BTW did I ever post this to WP? Can't remember :-)

I think the TPP hides a lot of the rot in the ALP vote. For a while preference deals can sustain you in elections, but nothing beats a strong primary vote. There is a tipping point; once your primary votes dips too far, you get eliminated on preferences and you're done.

The ALP is leveraging their primary vote by about a third: 6,216,435 TPP/4,711,383 first prefs = 132%.

By contrast the Coalition is leveraging by only 6,185,949 TPP/(3,777,384+1,130,525+462,387+38,335-23,538) first prefs= 115%.

That's even after taking out Tony Crook's first preferences for you :-).

I had an interesting thought the other day that in a compulsory preferential voting system, it really is the last number on your ballot paper that is important, because that is the only candidate for whom you can guarantee your vote WON'T be counted. If, rather than eliminating the candidate with the lowest #1 vote, they eliminated the candidate with the MOST last-preference votes, we'd see the end of tactical voting. I doubt the bulk of voters who voted 1) Liberal 2) Green 3) ALP really would prefer a Green government to an ALP government. If the ALP and Coalition really are in the centre, then they should both be at the top of elector's ballot papers, rather than at each end. --Surturz (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that can be our little bet for the next election. The Green vote, at most, will remain where it is, but likely go down. What won't happen IMHO is another vote spike/surge like this. Too many people suspicious of the Greens/don't consider them a real party/has family loyalties and bias going back generations (this is a BIGGIE as to why Lab v non-Lab coalition will NEVER disappear), Greens don't have any locational support bases like the early Lab/non-Lab/Country parties did to be able to win a respectable number of lower house seats, etc etc etc. Timeshift (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh you're on. I reckon the ALP are stuffed. Rudd should have gone to a double dissolution on the ETS. Gillard was the one that convinced Rudd to back down on the ETS, it's hard to think that she will now become a staunch supporter of any sort of carbon price. IMHO the ALP have permanently lost the CO2 vote; any Carbon Price now will be seen as the work of the Greens. The Unions never got their payback for the YRAW campaign (the ABCC is still around, isn't it?) and have already started to fund the Greens who, policy-wise, are more of a labour party than the ALP (I mean, look at this stuff [5] – it's like the 1980s never happened!). So the ALP will be forced to the right to keep their votes, which is a bridge too far - they're about as right as they can get now. At some point the party will realise it doesn't actually believe in any of its policies and implode.

Whether the Coalition will win is another question though, it will all depend on Abbott's ability to herd cats; Libs are usually pretty anarchic in Opposition. The Liberal party has a lot of philosophies, but solidarity ain't one of them :-) Also, the conservative side in general is fracturing; The Nats are descending into mercantilism or socialism or something, and the Libs can't seem to win elections properly.

So I reckon the Greens will sustain or improve their primary vote and pick up at least one more lower house seat. Small chance of a complete devastation of the ALP and a dozen or more Greens getting into the Reps - say if the ALP really bugger up the NBN and the Greens finally realise that the major parties are stealing their votes.

1,458,998 Green first preferences which resulted in only three non-classic electorates and a total TCP count of 120,804 votes. 1,338,194 (92%) of their votes ended up distributed to other parties. 92% of Green voters may as well have voted for someone else. The Greens got 12% of the total vote but only two-thirds of one percent of the seats. Talk about yer lulz! Get off the bong and carve up the stinking carcass of the ALP for God's sake. :-) --Surturz (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Lesser of two evils mate. I hear your type of rants from Liberals all the time... wasn't Labor on the nose from day one of the new government from 2007? Weren't Labor going to not only be beaten but thrashed at the 2010 election? I kept hearing of baseball bats! But Labor only won a minority of seats in QLD (enter Rudd). WA was like that since 2007. What a pathetic effort. Your continued optimism however is nothing less than I've come to expect. Disappointment after disappointment after disappointment, keeping the faith that the conservatives can tear down that nasty destructive Labor Party is what keeps your mob going. It keeps politics interesting, so I won't fight that :) Timeshift (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I KNOW you'll like this one [6]. Julie Bishop's interjection is priceless. --Surturz (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

... I can't believe you actually support that party. It's amazing in contrast. There may not have been many issues around when that was done... but christ... get a philosophy... a brick has more. It's like being hit with a wet lettuce leaf. Timeshift (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Tammy Franks

Thanks for your help cleaning up this article. --PabloZ (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Jennings is her married name, she's no longer married. --PabloZ (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Timeshift (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike Kelly

If I spelled it wrong, than change it!--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Australian Sex Party

You'll wan't to have a look at my most recent edit. I imagine you'll disagree with it, but regardless, I think it may be worth spending half and hour or so putting together a prose summary of the website's take. I'll try to do it later tonight, but feel free to have a go yourself.  -- Lear's Fool 12:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Updating

I'll add it to my to-do list. I'm going to have to leave the computer in about half an hour anyway, but hopefully I'll be able to continue the assault later tonight or tomorrow morning. Frickeg (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get on to the upper house when I have the motivation ... should be fairly soon. Frickeg (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, good point - it would have to be anyway, since they ran a separate ticket. If the Nationals had run a separate ticket in any other state we'd have to have them separate too, but it was just WA this time around. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no worries - it was absolutely a pleasure, and actually I've been looking forward to it to weeks! (How nerdy can you get?) As for the Coalition, I guess you're right that it simplifies it in a way, but I really wish they'd just merge the damn thing or split properly. The days when the eastern Nats had a separate identity are long gone (at least the SA Nats are likely dead with Maywald's defeat) ... I don't mind if the WA Nats stick around since they're definitely separate, but the Liberals should get their act together and either merge or destroy the Nats, which they could probably do in a few elections if they put their minds to it. (Cowper, Hinkler, Wide Bay would have to be gone straight away, and I can never understand why they don't run in Hunter. I was rather surprised that the Libs didn't do better in Richmond and Riverina, actually ...) Frickeg (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(By the way - amazing what changing one's party's name from "Liberty and Democracy Party" (appearing as LDP) to Liberal Democrats will do!) Frickeg (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, they were beating the Democrats and One Nation in pretty much every state, which is pretty good going for a party no one's really heard of. (They also held their deposit in Gippsland, but I suspect that had a lot to do with their candidate.) Considering they were polling well under 1% in 2007, I think it shows that names do have quite a bit of influence, especially when they're conveniently similar to two significant Australian parties and a British one! Frickeg (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that, in the absence of the Fishing Party and running in every state, I wasn't too surprised by the Shooters; they've been in the NSW Upper House for years, after all, and they've always done moderately well in the other states where they've run (with the odd exception of Western Australia). Of course, having changed the name to include "Fishers" probably also opened them up to a whole new constituency. I was rather surprised that the Qld version of the Fishing Party, the AFLP, did so well up there though, making it to the final count and everything. But I think, for me, the biggest surprise remains the LDP, probably after such a lacklustre result last time and also the fact that they ran far fewer lower house candidates this time around (and of course the DLP actually coming through on all their hype, although their actual vote wasn't much to get excited about). Frickeg (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. Exactly the same with Victoria. Julian McGauran, Steve Fielding or the DLP - what a choice! I eventually consoled myself with the DLP's win that at least Madigan's not a proven idiot (yet), unlike the other two ... Frickeg (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You're not wrong about the Greens - it was great to see them finally pull through after so many elections of disappointing expectations. I very much hope that this isn't the peak for them, although I rather fear it is. But I was very surprised to see them win in SA and to see how well they did in Qld, plus it was nice to see them make 2PP in Grayndler (which I expected) and Batman (which I didn't). And of course winning Melbourne, which everyone seemed pretty sure of but I was always worried about, given past expectations. But yes, they easily outdid the Democrats, who to my knowledge only ever made final 2PP federally twice (Cunningham 1990, Mayo 1998). But apart from One Nation's first glories in the 1998 Qld state election, the Greens have easily eclipsed the rest! (And I'm hopeful about Madigan too - from what I hear of Kavanagh in the VLC, he's by no means the idiot Fielding is.) Frickeg (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

NT's always a bit odd in the Senate - maybe it comes from the result being a foregone conclusion. But I too was a bit surprised by both the complete collapse of the Labor vote (they actually only just made a quota, after all) and the size of the votes for the Sex Party and the Shooters. Still, last time around Territorians delivered an inexplicable 2.01% to the CEC (which had them very excited and fielding lots of candidates up there this time, only to be disappointed). Speaking of which - the CEC seems to have collapsed a bit since last time; they only ran about 12 candidates when normally they run at least 80. In fact most of the minor parties seem to have given up a bit on the House: only the Greens and FFP ran a serious number of candidates (even the CDP ran less than usual). Frickeg (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I like the minor parties in the mix in the HoR - makes it more interesting! As for the SEP in Fowler, they were at the top of the ballot paper so got the (I imagine substantial) donkey vote (No GST benefited from this in 2004, when they held their deposit in Reid!) Frickeg (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Armadale

It seems to me that this would be far and away the best result ever achieved by the Christian Democrats. Any idea if I'm right? I remember they got about 9% in their first NSWLC election (back when they were Call to Australia ...), but can't think of any other occasion when they rivalled this result ... Frickeg (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite. I guess these non-Greens-receptive seats are open to this kind of thing, especially when there's no viable Independent or pseudo-Lib. To my recollection this is the first time the CDP have been the beneficiaries of this phenomenon, though. Even better than Grey Power is RARI on 30.94% 2PP! Frickeg (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MohamedHaneef.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MohamedHaneef.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please...

...do not edit other people's comments [7], and particularly not mine. Thank you. Mandsford 01:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

However, you're certainly welcome to erase my comments from your talk page. Discussions on other talk pages are another matter entirely. Mandsford 01:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel I was making a non-controversial correction of appearance rather than a correction of "comments", but if you took issue I apologise. Timeshift (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the origin of the custom, but we don't edit other folks' comments on talk pages, not even for obvious typos, grammar errors, indention fixes, etc. It's simply taboo. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Somehow i'm sure we'll manage to get past this period of terrible injustice if we band together... Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

RE liberal party ideology

I dont understand how my revision to the table on the liberal party article is any more "point of view" that the ones already on there.

i dont think many would deny "conservatism", "fiscal conservatism" and "social conservatism" are ideologies of the liberal party

just having "conservative liberal" and "liberal conservative" makes it sound like some kind of half-assed centrist fake conservative party the likes of those in western europe.

i think "fiscal conservatism" and "social conservatism" for example are far more concrete than what is already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 06:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a WP:NPOV and WP:OR minefield, compared to the indesputable lib con/con lib/new right listed. Timeshift (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

IP edits

I see you've come across the 111.220.xxx.xxx editor at Shayne Neumann. I have filed a COI report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Patricia Petersen that you may find relevant.  -- Lear's Fool 03:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste page moves

Hello, Timeshift9. Concerning your contribution, Bob Randall (Indigenous Australian), a page move cannot be done by simply copying and pasting the contents of a page into a new location, as such a process does not transfer the page's edit history and therefore violates the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)by denying attribution to editors who worked on Bob Randall. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from Bob Randall. As a violation of the page move process, Bob Randall (Indigenous Australian) needs to be temporarily deleted under the speedy deletion criteria so that Bob Randall may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. Bob Randall (Indigenous Australian) has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If not, please refrain from editing either Bob Randall or Bob Randall (Indigenous Australian) until the latter has been deleted according to Wikipedia's speedy criterion G6 (non-controversial housekeeping).

If you did not intend to make a page move, then please insert the {{hangon}} tag right below the {{db-copypaste}} tag in Bob Randall (Indigenous Australian) and state your intentions on Talk:Bob Randall (Indigenous Australian). An administrator will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. Thank you for your contributions. --Misarxist 15:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

your work

Ts9, for all of the friction between us during the federal election period, I must say that your continual work on Australian political articles is laudable. Well done. Tony (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Timeshift (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Adelaide city centre

i dare say the city centre is more important than the political leanings of it's residents! - I dare say! ;-)

However, the picture (File:Adelaide nth tce2.2.jpg) and the table together are too wide to both fit in a screen width of less than ~1100-1200 pixels. Solutions include, but are not limited to:

• move the picture
• reformat the table
• get a wider screen
• undo your edit

The option I like LEAST is undoing your edit (i.e. I, too, think the city is more important.) Do you have any suggestions? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Phil Costa

Could you clean-up the article? I've tried to improve it somewhat but I'm concerned with the "controversies" section (I've fixed the sources and moved it) as it seems to be more of an opinion piece. Bidgee (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why are you accusing me of being a sock puppet. I am not a sock puppet ((Simpson 742) 04:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Simpson 742) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpson 742 (talk • contribs)

You reinstated the edit that another editor undid as they were evading a sock ban. Your behaviour puts in to question whether you are one. Don't worry, I can't just deem you a sock and get you banned, there are standard processes in place for the various crosschecks required to ensure those that are banned for being a sock are genuine. And you seem to refer to sock puppets as if you're familiar with them... strange for a new/novice user... Timeshift (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I have read allot of Wikipedia articles over the years and That is what a banned evading user is called. --(Simpson 742) 10:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Simpson 742

Pity all that apparent reading hasn't paid off in grammatical competence. And how would you run in to sock puppet terms just by reading articles anyway? I'll let the sock checker do it's work. If you're genuine you're genuine, if you're not, well... *waves* Timeshift (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I read up on what a sock puppet is and you seem to think Im one it is offensive to me and Wikipedia as in disrespectful. In regards to being investigated for sock puppetry in your case it should be retrospective. ((Simpson 742)Simpson 742~) (Simpson 742(Simpson 742) 07:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

Uh huh. Let the sock puppet investigation commence! Timeshift (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what Retrospective means? and Im not a Sock puppet --(Simpson 742)Simpson 742~Simpson 742--(Simpson 742) 10:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Your question shows your young age... everyone knows what retrospective means. Let the sock puppet investigation commence! Timeshift (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what retrospective means Gough Whitlam used the word retrospective for a joke once, and oh I could care less what you do. --Simpson 742(Simpson 742) 04:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I like doing them so much that ...

Already done! ;) I'll move it to mainspace later today once I've finished the Legislative Council. Frickeg (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose! I was waiting until the declaration because (going by what happened at the federal election) we get a whole lot of people with no idea of formatting or anything much coming along and trying to add it; it was edit conflicts galore. Hopefully this method will work a bit better! (As far as I'm aware most of the Electoral Commissions don't post candidates progressively, so it should be less of a problem for others.) Frickeg (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Vic election

This is a little much, don't you think? The version proposed on the talk page had nothing really wrong with it apart from a little undue weight (and the headings, of course), and wasn't really biased. Broadly I've found their edits to be OK since the controversies. I wouldn't normally jump in like this but we're short enough of editors as it is, and this one's been comparatively productive so I'd hate to see them chased away (not that that's what you're doing, but some editors can be touchy about those kinds of things). Frickeg (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My edit on his talk pagew was prompted by his recent "social undermining" heading addition to Rudd's article here. Pomahob is playing up lately, and after a massive string of socks and eventual wikipedia give-in because he kept doing it to the extreme. Who knows how many dormant accounts there are. It's a pity really. Timeshift (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK - apologies. I didn't see the stuff at Rudd's article. (By the way, I think it's a she, from memory.) Frickeg (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A young female Liberal sock with bad grammatical skills... righteo. Timeshift (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Don Farrell

Timeshift, see comments in Don Farrell talk page. I note you have commented POV; however proposed words which you deleted were objective and based in fact. Farrell's role in the downfall of Rudd (even if disputed) is of historical importance. Grateful if you could comment on proposed wording for this issue which takes into account your issue with POV. Dnb01 (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why I BLPPRODed the pollies

I've just spent the last two months referencing almost the last remaining 400 unreferenced Australians and almost 400 Olympians and I spent most of this year helping to bring down the UBLP backlog from 50,000 to the current 20,000 - so don't have a go at me about tagging rather than referencing. BLPPROD was started in March to stop the UBLP problem from expanding. My BLPPRODs on those two were direct messages to the originating editor that we do not accept unreferenced BLPs anymore. Full stop. Period. The end. I knew that they'd be simple to reference, so I knew that they'd be cleared well before the 10 days was up, but I wanted to make sure that he/she now knows what is required. I'm have also just messaged the new page patrollers who I think are also at fault. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The highly controversial BLPPROD policy is a joke. It is a joke to prod/AfD articles purely on the basis that it is unreferenced. Timeshift (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not if you believe that all articles, especially BLPs, should be referenced, which I do. WP:V is policy and a piller. line two of that document says All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research. I also believe that unreferenced BLPs aren't actually the problem, but removing them is a start. You've got to stop equating BLPPROD to the other deletion processes, which, generally, are due to a lack of notability. This one is different. Personally I'd not allow anything to be created that wasn't referenced appropriately - stick it in a holding pen of sorts, with a userright to allow editors who have shown that they can be trusted to follow policy to bypass it, similar to the autoreviewer tag - but that might delay the reaching of the next X million article milestone.The-Pope (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Then reference it rather than delete it! It really is simple... Timeshift (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to make a point to the article creator. I've done more than my fair share of referencing. The-Pope (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

At last we agree... WP:POINT! Timeshift (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Majority/Minority government

Hmmm...I have to say I do agree that I may have done something somewhat stupid as to do that without consensus, but I don't find it unsightly at all, nor do I find it trivial. I was trying to adress the issue raised about the newer, shinier election infoboxes having the drawback of not being able to indicate when a minority government is formed, but now I think about it probably was a lax way of doing it. I still find it unsatisfactory, however, that the new infoboxes don't have any way of indicating minority governments. I will not support reverting back to the original infoboxes - and I know neither will you - but I would like it to have some form of indication that a minority government has taken place, as that may dispell much confusion. Kapitan110295 (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well fair enough, but I'd still be much happier with some sort of indication. I see an infobox as a quick summary to display as much information as neatly as possible, so in that perspective you'd want the reader to read as little of the rest of the article of possible. I don't see the fact that a minority government took place as being trivial, as it may ultimately may change the course of the next term, as did happen after the 1940 election when the independents went to join Curtin. If you think it's fine the way it is, fair enough, we'll keep it the way it is. But if there is an easy way of putting in some form of indication, I'd be fully on board with that. Kapitan110295 (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Re, medal for Honnor

Hello, I noticed your message of course well, it will be good with the Liberals in State Government, labor were in for 11 years here and people wanted a change, it is a shame the DLP did not gain any seats and also the Federal election this year might have convinced votors to have a state liberal government, the greens did not gain any wins ha ha. (Hewson 1994(HEWSON 1994). (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

... is that supposed to be a comeback? Timeshift (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Australian federal election, 1919

Hi TimeShift. I've just done the pendulum for the Australian federal election, 1919 page, and an inconsistency has arisen. The page itself, and it's source, University of WA, both state that the Nationalists won 37 seats at the election, however the electoral results pages for the divisions add up to 41 seats for the election, with far fewer seats won by the state Country Parties. Do you now what's going on here and which source should we trust? Kapitan110295 (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy reading the talk page of that article :) Timeshift (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh right, I didn't read the talk page as I should've done. I think maybe that sort of information should be mentioned in the article itself, as the compass I've added and the fact that 37 is one short of a majority may confuse readers. I did notice that despite Frickeg saying that the way we were showing was wrong, no one actually bothered to fix it. I would do it myself, but I do have to say that I have quite a bit of trouble understanding what he's saying, let alone put into simpler terms. Kapitan110295 (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark Latham

Just a friendly note, as you've got way more experience than me, but you just hit 3 reverts in 24 hours on Mark Latham, so be sure you don't cross WP:3RR. Also, I'm not sure if you noticed, but it's actually 2 different editors who want the info in (User:Skyring and User:Apollo1986, so some might argue at the moment you're the one "warring." I think that the info probably shouldn't be in the article myself, although I'm not certain yet, and would like to see some discussion by all parties. So, if either of the other editors reverts you again, you probably should take it to the talk page so you don't mistakenly get in trouble. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bartlett

Hi Timeshift. I note your edits regarding Bartlett. Speculation by the press is still speculation and not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as established fact. I won't undo your additions but I would advise against such edits in future. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

But we can say there is media speculation. Bartlett's press conference is due at 3pm as the articles say. When do articles say this but it doesn't eventuate? Let's just have some common sense please. EDIT: And now the media have revealed Bartlett's Facebook resignation. Timeshift (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

wtf???

why did you remove the home insulation scandal from the list of australian political controversies - four people died due to an ill conceived policy which allowed people with no qualifications or experience to staple foil insulation into roof areas with 240v wiring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.114.40 (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM, and not in the same league. To any who wish to dissent, read List of Australian political controversies and what constitutes a political controversy. It is not in the same league as policies and their outcomes. Timeshift (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Abbott

The footage is now online at http://au.news.yahoo.com/ Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw the footage, but it's not nearly as delish as Abbott's 10 second brain freeze/aneurysm :) How any self-respecting Liberal can support that gaffe-a-second babboon of a leader is totally beyond me. Timeshift (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's amazing stuff. The story was a bit of a hatchet job, but Abbott's reaction was ...scary. Abbott's macho posturing seems to backfiring rather spectacularly at the moment - definitely not PM material. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It won't get the MSM media attention. They run the show and it doesn't fit in with their meme. Timeshift (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be getting a pretty high level of coverage. Laurie Oakes' assessment of it is devastating. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Don't worry, I'll be back! I think it's partly because I burnt myself out a little, partly because it's been the silly season and I'm a bit fed up with politics generally, and partly because I've been focusing a little on other things. I doubt it'll be too long before I'm back, though, although I think I'll ease myself in a little. Frickeg (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion

Do you think preferential voting should be made optional like in NSW? 137.154.73.31 (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No I don't. The current system ensures no vote is wasted and has worked successfully for longer than most entire democracies. I think people who can't bring themselves to vote for either major party (by primary or preference vote) are snobs that don't realise how much they've assisted Australia to develop in to the envy of the world today. If one wishes to vote for a minor party that's their right, but it should come back in to the fold. I don't think it enshrines a two-party system... it's only considered two-party because of the way people currently vote. If more people vote for another party than one of the current ones, than guess what, the whole 2PP/2CP theory in Australia changes and readjusts as needed. The UK wants to bring it in and I think there's tri-partisan support if i'm correct. If it was good enough for the right side of politics for the past century, then it's good enough for the left side of politics for the last decade. I think it would be a bit unfair to deprive one side preferences, when the other has benefitted from them for so long... don'cha think? :) My turn to ask a question... do you believe in preferential voting? Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I brought it up because of what Antony Green wrote on his blog which was about NSW adopting the system because they thought back then when Labor was in power that a threat would come from the right instead of the left and in this upcoming election Labor as a result will obviously perform more poorly than if it was compulsory. I like the idea of it being optional, sort of halfway in between. It's common sense that through this system the informal vote will be lower. Which is a good thing. 137.154.73.31 (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Upper house STV tickets brought the informal rate down too... so? :) Timeshift (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Gillard images

Hi Timeshift, could you point me to where discussion took place re this edit reverting pic with Russian? I couldn't find it with a cursory search on Rudd's talk page. Thanks, Donama (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

When I find some time in the coming days i'll look for it. Timeshift (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Here and here. I hope your enquiries purely stem from interest in the discourse and nothing more... Timeshift (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A bit disappointed at the suspicion in your voice. Ah well. Thanks for the background. Makes sense. Donama (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage

By-and-large I don't mind the way you use your userpage, but I think referring to Abbott as a "dog-whistling turd" oversteps the line somewhat. Would it be too much to ask for you to remove that and moderate your language somewhat?  -- Lear's Fool 06:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You have a problem with dog-whistling? That speaks volumes :) I don't think turd is a swear word or one to be censored IMHO. Timeshift (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not that the language itself is offensive, it's that we have (for a number of good reasons) policies and guidelines (see Wikipedia is not a blog and What may I not have in my user pages?) against polemical userpages and using them as de-facto blogs. I understand that you justify the way you use yours as a declaration of bias, but (as I said above) calling Abbott a "dog-whistling turd" oversteps the line from declaration of bias to polemic.  -- Lear's Fool 00:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the real reason you object to it? People have raised the use of my userpage as a "blog" previously, with the end result being that I deleted some because I had collected so much without deleting. But to satisfy you, i've removed the entire contribution. There are much better things now for my talk page to get across :) Timeshift (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  -- Lear's Fool 10:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No answer to the question? Fascinating you haven't raised your concerns earlier. I find it interesting you now find my userpage acceptable considering it has barely changed from before, in relation to the particular concerns you raised. Timeshift (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No ulterior motives here, Timeshift, just a genuine concern that one particular phrase crossed a line. Thanks for your prompt response.  -- Lear's Fool 12:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rann and SA

Just a few questions for you as you seem to rewrite any edits I do on Rann which of course your welcome to do as long as the article is improved.

• 1. On the SA 2014 election page why did you add polling from mid 2009? Was it to show the differences from the time Redmond took the leadership or was it to show the trend of decline for Rann?
• 2. Why do Wiki keep mentioning Labor leaders had working class parents? Why not say Mike Rann's father was an electrician and returned serviceman.
• 3. Rann's polling has dropped since the assault, surely there is a cause for this?
• 4. Why is his nickname "Media Mike" not in the article ?
• 5. I 'd like to see the page have a total rewrite, to much of the article is in present tense when it occured in the past.
• 6. How did Rann govern successfully when he had a minority government? Purrum (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I often rewrite your edits on many articles to smooth out the POV. 1, it goes back to the start of Redmond, but like Howard/WorkChoices had, there was a blip a year before that which may have sowed the seed. 2, i suppose it's about their upbringing, but if I recall correctly, that bit was actually added by former editor and Liberal supporter Beneaththelandslide. 3, it may have some cause and effect, it may be happenstance, there's no way of knowing, except to say that a leader should be judged on their record, not non-parliamentary irrelevant distractions. 4, not sure, but I generally don't believe in adding nicknames to wiki that have been promulgated by the media. 5, I think the article is reasonable but happy to see suggestions. 6, South Australian state election, 2002. Labor won more seats than the Liberals. They fared favourably with the indies. Like 2010 really, funny that. It's always good when indies have their unpartisan say :) What I always find interesting is that an independent "shows their true colours" when they back Labor, but if they were to back the Liberals well that's all good and dandy. lol.

• 1 fair enough
• 2 I don't like classifying people, working class- middle class - upper class
• 3 I reckon Rann is disinterested now
• 4 I'd reckon Media Mike saids alot about his personality
• 5 I'd like to see more on his first term , what his government did rather that Dunstan/Bannon comparisions
• 6 If NSW goes how they predict then Indies will go the same as the Dodo. Purrum (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see more on his first term too. References are another matter. But currently there's an issue being that the SA 2006 article is a Featured Article, so the election article tended to get the detail of the first and second term more than Rann's article does, but then newer editors came and started adding government doings in to Rann's personal article instead of the election articles. As for indies, there will always be indies who are elected as indies and will always be indies regardless of who they give confidence votes to. Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Now a question for you. It took 15 years for the Libs to win a majority government in a state election in Australia, dozens of elections, what are the odds. How do you win when you threaten deeps cuts in the public sector. Peter Batchelor when Labor won in vic 1999 said there are four pillars to state governments - public transport , health, education and policing. we promised more nurses,teachers, police and trains.

I agree that the Liberals have nothing to offer the people. Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Baillieu never promised job losses ands got elected. Bartlett and Rann got re-elected on the fears of job cuts , now both states are cutting jobs.

Rarely is an election decided by a single issue, let alone public sector job cuts.

Here's a single issue that cost Brumby six seats, The Caulfield to Frankston rail line, When they issued new timetables Frankston lost the limited express into the city, The Pakenham line used to be stopping all stations but now got the limited express trains. It added about 8 minutes to a 70 minute journey. All six labor seats along the rail line changed hands. Purrum (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

With this particular poll and discussing the lesser-relevance primary vote, Labor dived 8.5 percent with most of it picked up by the Greens. The Lib primary vote did not change. Why do people not get enthused by the Liberals? Far left voters never move to the right. Labor used to have the left of centre to themselves, now they share with the Greens

I'm a bit confused by your answer, so i'll clarify two things. If Labor drops 8, Libs stay stagnant, and Greens rise 8, that isn't 8% who have gone from Labor to Green... people tend to think in gross swings which is grossly incorrect. Every swing is a net swing within a net swing. Greens votes split 80/20 to Labor, FFP 60/40 to Lib. Some Labor votes will have gone to Liberal and Green, some Liberal votes would have gone to Green and Labor, some Green votes would have gone to Labor and Liberal. Obviously any one may be a lot higher than another but each occurs. The overall net effect has seen Labor dive, the Greens jump, and Libs stagnant. But that doesn't mean some came and some left the Liberal camp. Gross swings don't exist in reality. Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Government is won from the centre. so if government lurks to far one way it abandons the centre to the opposition. Hawke and Keating govern from just right of centre but Keating eventually lurked to the left. I think he had a gutfull and wanted to lose in 1996 and keep the party out of office for a decade.

Yes, Abbott should learn this. However, there is no clear left centre and right. Theres economic, social, and moral left centre and right, not to mention the various axes. You folly when you say that Keating went too far to the left, it's frankly wrong and intellectually dumbing. Not to mention your Keating theories. He kept Labor in longer than the next Liberal government :) Timeshift (talk)

Hawke and Keating were the best liberal PM's we ever had Purrum (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Do they offer nothing? they don't have Foley

Even the tiser of all publications can sometimes be seen to be giving credit to Foley for his excellent stewardship of the Treasury post. I'd take him anyday over the shambolic disaster that was the previous two-term three-leader Liberal excuse of a government. Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

from what I read, everybody is sick of Foley now.

yes, what you read, precisely. you aren't from SA. Timeshift (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think (just a theoretical proposition) there has been a 2PP swing if the Lib primary vote is unchanged? protest vote?

Huh?

I'm not a croweater and only got interested with the Chantelois affair or friendship.

The 2PP is calculated based on the previous election's preference flows. Never have the Libs done so poorly on minor party/ind preferences so their primary vote is of the utmost importance, the Democrats are long gone. Timeshift (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Family first pref? Purrum (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

FF only splits 60/40 to the Liberals, so on a 5% vote, the Libs only pick up about 3% from FF. Never have the conservatives done so poorly on preferences in history. Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

But ultimately, Rann's already been leader for 16 years and next year will become the longest-running democratically elected Premier in South Australian history, with a mandate to be a 12-year government leader. The Libs have only won three elections, one being a minority and lost the 2PP vote, since the end of the Playmander, the electoral malapportionment in 1970 which allowed Playford to win despite losing elections multiple times with 2PPs far less than anything Rann ever got. SA is the only state in Australia to have its boundaries redistributed after every election to attempt fairness, introduced by Labor after the '89 election. LOL! Timeshift (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

He's been in for so long he' is now coasting, the problem is the government is drifting and people have tuned into that and now probably want to see the back of him. Purrum (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Must stem from your readings again. The government's problem is various perceptions and more to do with personalities than policies. Rann Labor has a great economic and infrastructure record and they continue to deliver. There have been some tough issues, but it's called long-term incumbent government baggage, every government has it. The longest democratically elected premier in SA, 150 years of SA premiers, doesn't just occur by accident. For whatever criticisms one may have of SA Labor, nothing outtrumps it like a walk down SA Liberal memory lane :) Timeshift (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you compare pictures of him he looking more haggard and he less lifeforce Purrum (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As would any government leader nearing the end of their record-tenure :) Timeshift (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The longer a government is in the less effective they get , but then record terms don't occur by accident hense a rewrite to explain how he did it.Purrum (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how "explaining how he did it" which is disputedly already there as much as any other PM/premier article, and how it links to needing a rewrite? Bizarre. Timeshift (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I will add one more thing. Everything considered, on balance, I tend to think Rann won't manage to get to February 2012 as leader. There are undoubted machinations by self-interested parties who are aware of the milestone, it will be interesting to see what happens and if Rann manages to trump Dunstan and Bannon and become South Australia's longest-serving democratically-elected Premier. Timeshift (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Oz

Can you link me to where Wikipedia officially decided The Australian was not a legitimate source? Also, I believe those matters have been reported elsewhere (so it would be a simple matter of substituting sources) and are relevant to Rhiannon's election to the Senate as a matter of public interest, in that her campaign encountered controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penzance1 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Officially? There's no such thing. Consensus rules. The POV slant of your writing and the source used is in itself not suitable. Do you think a news outlet can be a WP:RS on the Greens if it has itself stated that it wishes to destroy the Greens? Just think for a second. Of course it can't be. And then you fail to see the POV in your writing... not to mention substituting Oz opinions as facts... mmhm. Timeshift (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

South Australian state election, 1890

I changed the QLD election pages first and on the 1915 election page the Ministerialist leader, Digby Denham, was indeed a conservative whose result table colour was blue. As such, when I first created the Ministerialist colour template thing, I chose blue to fit in with that page.

Later on, when I added an infobox to the 1897 election page, a Ministerialist party come up once again, along with an Oppositionist party. John Forrest himself was a conservative, so the blue fit in there, and I chose yellow for the Oppositionist party because in the late 19th century to 20th century, blue and yellow were the main colours for the parties.

So when I did the SA elections last, the colours were already set for the Ministerialist and Oppositionist parties, and if they get swapped around all the other election pages will be affected. That's one of the problems with these election infoboxes; a bit lack of flexibility. However, I still find it much better than the old ones, especially those dreadful ones that used to occupy the SA election pages.

Feel free to use a solution if you have one, just let me know what it is first. Kapitan110295 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's my stupidity confirmed, then. Go for it. Kapitan110295 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Kapitan110295 (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious?

And you call me biased! LOL! Timeshift (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Making fun of the Libs is all well and good, but talk smack about D&D and shit will get real! :-) --Surturz (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, not a D&D'er! ;) Timeshift (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You've been calling me a troll for years! I thought you knew? :-) --Surturz (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

note something

"But I will note something... when Labor was in opposition, protests never got as nasty and Tea Party'ish. Laborites protested on policies. All it seems Lib protesters want to do is let off steam from 4 years of opposition. :)"

lol now YOU have got to be kidding. The recent protests didn't break in to parliament house and trash the joint, like the ALP protests in 1996. --Surturz (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my claim. This was an isolated incident by a small number of seperatist protestors, and not at all endorsed or wanted or accepted by any member of the parliamentary wing. A small number on the industrial side have always been revolutionaries ;) What has happened over the past few days is very different, and Abbott-endorsed. Timeshift (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I reckon protests are lazy democracy anyway. That ref you sent is a hoot. It somehow manages to conclude that Howard was to blame for the riots. Those wacky Marxists! (btw it also says that the riot was not the work of a small number of people, and that Beazley and the Greens were scheduled speakers at the very same rally, but obviously I wouldn't want embarass you on those points) --Surturz (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the ref completely, yes I do understand it is a big read. Don't make conclusions based on a quick skim. It was the work of a small number of people when compared to how many attended the protests. And an even smaller number actually instigated it. And I don't doubt leaders were scheduled to attend, the protests were meant to be peaceful. Abbott did not speak out against anything at the protests. Labor condemned the renegade actions perpetrated by a minority. Not to mention Labor protests have far more attendances... it's rather amusing and ironic watching Australian conservatives attempt protests :) Very cute. They were small in numbers but big in passion and vitriol! Timeshift (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yeah the Right in Australia have troubles organising rallies... most of their supporters have jobs and, you know... wash. (For some reason I just had a vision of a bunch of pensioners using their walking frames to break in to parliament house. Slowly.)

Mike Rann and the magazines - lol!! Were there barmaids at the function? :-) --Surturz (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call that stereotypical, seeing as union bosses and workers... work. That's just ignorant. The US right seems to have no issue organising rallies. But if it comforts you, go for it :) And yes there were bar men and women both behind the counter and walking around (in the lobby) serving us free french champagne, red wine, and classy nibblies. I'm sure it provided more than enough distraction for Rann to... err... nah, Sasha was there, surely he's not that brazen! What I want to know is where his anti-rolled-up-magazine security contingent was! Timeshift (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

congrat on your service award but I am surprised you have left this on Mike Rann page.

Rann has currently served 22 years, 38 days as Premier,

I'd classified this as cheering or grandstanding, not very professional, none of the other premiers have a running tally Purrum (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not my contribution, I tend to agree with you... I think it belongs in the third term section with the other record stuff rather than the lead. But why bring that up here? If you're genuiunely concerned there are far better processes... Timeshift (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have deleted it but I thought you'd reinstate it because I didn't have consensus Purrum (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

New South Wales State election, 2011

TimeShift, are you having such trouble coping with a Labor defeat that you keep pretending Labor hasn't lost? I know you are a Labor supporter. But that dosen't excuse your pathetic edits. I am a fairly new user, and I keep getting really surprised at your obvious show of bias.144.136.101.108 (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The standard procedure for any election, including this one surprise surprise, is that someone becomes a Premier when the governor swears them in. Until such time, they are not. This is standard. For you to argue otherwise shows your ignorance or your bias, or unfortunately, both. Timeshift (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not the only issue. I point out your page where you claim the Liberals have no entitlement to govern despite a 43 seat majority. That is delusional. I also note your appaling comments linking a bus accident to the Liberal Party.144.136.101.108 (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice spin. I said, like Debnam says, that the O'Farrell government will have no mandate for any policies it didn't introduce at the election, which come next election, will be 95% of the policies soon to come. It will only have a mandate for the skerrick of policies it brought to this election. Carbox tax anyone? ;) And rather than fawn outrage, how about a bit of navel gazing at why his sump plug was busted rather than shoot off the hip at people uncovering such disgraceful acts? Timeshift (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It brought 115 policies to the election. And how did you discover the damage to Peter Besselings bus? Secondly what eveidence do you have? If you have any genuine evidence, go to the Police. Otherwise stop grandstanding144.136.101.108 (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And if it sticks to those 115 policies, we'll both be happier (or will we? :)... and don't ask me, ask the news companies reporting it. If you ask me, Australian conservatives are becoming very Tea Party'ish. Such viciousness... Timeshift (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless Timeshift today is a very, very sad day for the NSW Labor party. The people have spoken. 211.30.121.12 (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Swings and roundabouts. 16 years is a loooong time in modern politics. Now its your turn to enjoy the cold truths of incumbency :) Timeshift (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Didnt help they were a bad government! I hope they get their act together and learn their lesson because having one party dominate is not good for anyone. Thing is this has been on the wall for a long, long time and they made no major announcements to shift public opinion. At least your govt has started to renew itself. Cheers 211.30.121.12 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you constitute as a bad government? A bad government doesn't stay in office for 16 years. I believe NSW still holds its triple-A economic rating? Yes, what a bad nasty government! It's their last term that stuffed them over, they were more interested in themselves than the public, and the next election saw them out accordingly. Timeshift (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I live in NSW, you don't. There are too many reasons ranging from the petty which were insignificant at the end of the day to the major such as failing in infrastructure but the last four years had a lot to do with the ineptitude of the Opposition at the last election. Its important the ALP get their act together so they can hold the government to account. And get this Timeshift, the Greens vote went up by 1.4%. So much for them being the next major force. If ever there was an election where their vote was going to spike, this was it. But no, people wanted a change and that is why they voted albeit with a trembling hand for the Coalition. Cheers 211.30.121.12 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a landslide change of government election. The Greens rose their vote above 10% and keep it above 10% unlike the Democrats. For a political party to consistently get 1 in 10 votes in a sustained manner outdoes anything any Australian party has ever done except for Labor/Liberal :) And blah blah blah about NSW, end of the day, the good people of NSW kept Labor in power for 16 years. That says something good about Labor, bad about the Coalition, or both. But whatever the answer, better the devil you know. What a bad feeling you must have that the Coalition's only chance of government is when Labor collapses. How about making it there on the party's policies' own merit? Oh that's right, we're talking about the Australian conservatives. Regressive views are no substitute for good policy. Timeshift (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Look at you Timeshift, you automatically assume I am a conservative voter yet all I am stating is a common sense view. Richo said on TV they were the worst govt ever, Luke Foley admitted they had one term too many as govts tend to do. Timeshift, I would be worried about your own state govt given the power the right has. You saw what the right did in NSW. 211.30.121.12 (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Never let bias get in the way of a good rant eh? :) They said the government between 2007-11 was bad, not the earlier Labor governments. And of course they'd say it's bad, look at the margin they lost by! Labor Right isn't inherantly bad, look what it brought us in terms of the policies during Whitlam/Hawke/Keating! I think you need to get out of NSW a bit more, and clean your sunnies of that cloudy bias when in NSW. And lastly, is that honestly your last reply to me or won't you be able to help yourself yet again? :) Timeshift (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Random note on NSW politics

It will be interesting to see if the NSW Liberal Party trolls vanish from Wikipedia now that they've got day jobs (didn't a couple of them claim to be staffers (or have IP addresses in Macquarie Street))... Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

They won't immediately, but once Fatty starts to cart out the Liberal policies that they didn't take to the election (be it this or next term depending on how quickly they don't mind scaring the horses) they'll pull up stumps :) Timeshift (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

True. People tend to be more enthusiastic about oppositions than governments for that reason. Did you see the Nielson Poll in the SMH yesterday that found that 80% of people had no or little idea what the Liberals' policies were? It's good to see NSW Labor out of power, but a lot of people who voted for the Liberals are going to be surprised with what they've ended up with. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that O'Farrell will be softly softly for the first term so he can give a faux rebuttal that he will/would have introduce(d) Liberalesque policies that we've all come to know and hate but aren't brought to the election as next-term policies. Timeshift (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If ever there was an argument against four year fixed terms then this was it.Purrum (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but the NSW government is very unlikely to have called an early election given the thrashing they were always going to take. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. The penultimate poll prior to the 2007 election had Labor on a 59% 2PP. A couple of polls later they had collapsed. As usual, it wasn't due to a good Lib/Nat Coalition, they just sat on their hands as usual and waited for the government to collapse. Pity they can't get anywhere on actual merit. Massivest lopsided election in a long time and the party of the Premier to be can't even reach 40%... pathetic! :) Timeshift (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Balmain

Antony explains the situation here. It really is still very close. Frickeg (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I realise that, I just think that if the main page says it's a gain and not an expected/likely, that there's no issue listing it here as a gain, until abc results say otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the listings of win/in doubt is all calculated behind the scenes, not manually assigned by Antony Green. Elsewhere he says that the election calculator lists Pauline Hanson as a likely win, although his personal view is that it is much closer than that and the calculator is in error. --Surturz (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think the NSWEC trumps the ABC's computer as a source. Frickeg (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

All i'm asking for is the consistent application of 'seats changing hands' additions. Timeshift (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Jan Barham

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Jan Barham. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And it has one in see also! Don't like it? I don't care. Stupid bots and stupid nonsensical rules were never for me. Timeshift (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Buckingham

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Jeremy Buckingham. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Per above. Timeshift (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

why the pendulum

As I refer to the page alot I wanted to make it quicker to find the pendulum link. Purrum (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. I'm changing it back. Timeshift (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some lulz for you

:)  -- Lear's Fool 04:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Timeshift9. You have new messages at Lear's Fool's talk page.
Message added 08:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  -- Lear's Fool 08:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Budget

I stumbled upon this. Do we usually have an article for the Budget? I can't seem to find any others...  -- Lear's Fool 09:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Disengage

I see that you and User:Timbracks13 are in a numkber of disputes across multiple articles and since it apears that neither of you can play nicely together I suggest you make attempts to disengage Gnangarra 08:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Timbracks13

Hi Timeshift, It would be best if you backed off from Timbracks13's talk page - he or she isn't about to be unblocked any time soon and there's not much to be gained from posting there. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Consider it done. I said consider it done at his request on his talkpage too, but he removed it and then gave a sob story and blamed me for everything. How is it my fault when he came to my user and talk page from nowhere and vandalised and removed repeatedly despite repeated indications from others to policy advising otherwise, and then began to spread to POINTy contribs, and the events began again. I'd love to respond but i'll bite my lip. People can observe contributions and history at their pleasure and see him for what he is for themselves. Timeshift (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not your fault - the editor was going out of their way to be abusive (goodness knows why). I very much doubt that they're a genuinely new editor on the basis of their conduct. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So do I.  -- Lear's Fool 11:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sweet sweet justice! Glad to see it being got to the bottom of. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Lear's Fool. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI confirmation much? :D Timeshift (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes they make admins jobs very easy ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this justifies me completely. Yes, sometimes, I may be to the point, however after 5 years i've become a pretty good judgement on wikipedia, and right from the beginning I knew something was up. Too much emphasis was put on the fact he was a "newbie" by some, IMHO. He kept ignoring guidelines, but both of us were told to pull out of discussion. The response time on this particular instance tonight was way out of wikipedia SLA, I may have to go to the ombudsman ;) Timeshift (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Gold. Timeshift (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I had the same feeling (they knew too much to be a newbie), I watched from the sidelines as I'm sick of the drama. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Australian politics on wikipedia in 2011 is far from what it was in 2006. There's so many subversive actions that go on, there's always active socks out there, there's always vandalism happening, and it only increases. Over time, my contribs have gone from majority new contribs to majority vandalism watch and revert. But not because i've reduced my output (though I don't do as much as I used to simply because of how filled the content has become), simply because as wikipedia becomes more popular and used, now every 5 year old kid out there thinks its cool to come along and vandalise wikipedia, or a 10 year old with nothing better to do than to carry out subversive long-term actions. They're everywhere :) Timeshift (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You might think this is funny, Timeshift, but I for one am sick of dealing with him. I've got half a mind to revoke his talkpage access on all his accounts to head off the inevitable torrent of disruptive and tendentious unblock requests. That or ask for a community ban.  -- Lear's Fool 12:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do find this funny thank you very much :) But for how it played out. Enidblyton has created so many socks that I know that as far as his overall actions go, it's not funny too, i'm sick to death of it. I just thought we'd seen the end of it. But I think that each time. This time was a direct attack against me only and no others, so in that way it was not the usual Enidblyton i've come to expect. He's a serial offender incapable of rehabilitation, he needs to be blocked on all levels of access for life. I'm surprised it hadn't been done sooner to be honest. Timeshift (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Goodnight! Timeshift (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's reasonable to conclude that Enidblyton is de-facto banned at the moment. No admin in their right mind is going to unblock him/her. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

sigh. Call me Pollyanna I suppose. --Surturz (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@Nick: Sure, I'm just trying to find a way of preventing him from wasting the time of any more administrators. After the last block, the fun continued on his talkpage for a week, and he kept e-mailing me a week after that. My point is that he seems very capable of disruption even while blocked, so if this continues with this new account, I'll be removing talkpage access on all of them for at least 6 months.  -- Lear's Fool 02:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Not having been that involved in Oz Pol for at least 12 months, I didn't really pick up on much of the above. Instead, I tried to mentor him (as some of his editing looked like it could have had potential). Can't stand dishonest and deceptive behaviour that makes one look a tad foolish. Lock the talk page and through away the key I say. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Lear's Fool, I'd support a formal community ban if you'd like to propose one. This person seems unable to interact with others. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

I know nothing about the subject, actually. I haven't noticed any of the micronation pages before. I doubt any of them are notable. As for this particular article, I had a cursory glance at the references provided and none of them seemed to be WP:RS: Marie Claire? Stamps News Australasia? lol.

I plan to put the blowtorch to it: either it will end up a decent article with proper refs or an RfD will succeed. --Surturz (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You seemed to want to back up TimBracks13 however, and you both seemed to want to attack the article. Anywho... after my first post to you, I noticed that the page had already undergone three failed AfDs, the last two convincingly. Hmm. Timeshift (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I _was_ trying to steer TimBracks13 towards constructive editing, yes, because at the time I did not realise he was a sock account. However, just because it has survived AfDs in the past is no excuse for leaving forum posts and stamp magazines as refs. If you would like to find good WP:RS for the article, please go ahead. --Surturz (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The language you gave to the newbie IMHO was the wrong style. For example, you encouraged deletion over improvement, and you told him ways to manipulate the policies in his ultimate aim of article removal. Just sayin'. Timeshift (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I encouraged deletion because I agreed with him that WP would be improved with the deletion of the article. The GALKOFTCSI is not really a nation, it is/was a political stunt. I doubt it is a real micronation in the way that Sealand is. Some political stunts are notable, I don't think this one is. I think my advice to TB13 was good advice: it lists how to improve the article by deleting text that doesn't comply with WP policy, and the steps needed to establish WP:CONS for deletion. I don't believe that I was advocating any manipulation of policy.

FWIW I've been on the other end of this at Philip Dorling - threatening an article with deletion can be the start of improving it. In general, I'm a deletionist, for the reasons described here: User:Isomorphic/Essays/Deletionism. --Surturz (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

these dont cut it

these dont cut it Why do you say that? (I'm not complaining - just interested in learning your criteria.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have an issue with this particular decision per se, however the edit removed an anti-Liberal bias and added an anti-Labor bias, against a stream of anti-Labor patterns that saw the user banned as a serial sockpuppet. Timeshift (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have an issue with this particular decision per se - Ah ha! That makes sense. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

On what basis should there be an equal number of Lib and ALP scandals? I think the whole page should be deleted. --Surturz (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I don’t have a problem with the page if it is only listing those “controversies” that have articles. If the individual article’s themselves are not warranted (ie, not notable), then it is a matter for individual AFDs, and the list page in question is simply a list of what’s on wikipedia and is inherently objective.

I think we all know that attempting to balance the number of lib and lab scandals is BS, as is trying to weight different scandals.

I suggest red links are deleted immediately. --Merbabu (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The previous two posts would be more appropriate (and more useful) on Talk:List_of_Australian_political_controversies, not here. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think i've been misinterpreted. I don't believe "there should be an equal number of scandals", my issue was with the Enidblyton serial sockpuppet pest coming along with his bias and removing an anti-Liberal scandal and adding an anti-Labor scandal, IMHO hardly a neutral or justifiable edit. Timeshift (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you were misinterpreted, but my point still stands - ie, make it a list about scandals that actually have articles. Then at least the list is an objective list of what is on wikipedia. And then, indeed, the onus of objectivity gets pushed down to the individual (listed) article level. ie, A notability check of each article would not be unwarranted. --Merbabu (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)