User talk:Timeshift9/Archive3

MHS

He didn't make a difference! The entire Liberal team is... well, not strong and vibrant enough. Look at Rann; he's got an aurora of strength that surrounds him and his team. The Liberal leader to win an election probably isn't sitting in parliament yet. michael ^talk 05:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keating

Hey Timeshift awesome pic, I think it would look even more awesome if you cropped it at the shoulders instead. He had a formidable appearance in that portrait, and putting in just the headshot tends to lose some of that. Cheers. I elliot 06:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Does the great man justice. Well done :-) I elliot 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoFascists

Of course, TS. A glorious battle to be fought in the name of... common sense. michael ^talk 14:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hello there TS! Strange question, but do you know where one could find electorate maps (or, even better, booth) maps demonstrating the strength of the republican / monarchy vote in the 1999 referendum? Just a matter of interest, hope all is well. michael ^talk 05:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An uncontested seats bit would deliver a (much deserved) slap to the face to those who rabidly look at 2PP figures, so bravo! If anything comes to mind, I'll be sure to let you know. PDFs... how many are there? If they're not too much (in mbs), I've got some spare webspace where I could host them for easy access. michael ^talk 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Go to preferences and type in your email so I can send it to you. I'll send in ten mins. michael ^talk 07:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just email me, then; mine works. I'll just add you. michael ^talk 07:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

elections - uncontested seats

Hi TS, sorry for bringing this up after you've done all that work, but just to put it out there I thought it might be better to give uncontested seats its own column as the format it is in at the moment is a bit unclear and potentially confusing. Your thoughts? Wiki Townsvillia n 09:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, precisely what I hoped you wouldn't say :P. Yeah I'll do it no probs :) Wiki Townsvillia n 09:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!!! I forgot I committed to do that! just ask if there's anything I can Wiki Townsvillia n 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timeshift, what do you think? Australian federal election, 1943 cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 07:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, I moved the independent up there as an afterthought, would have no probs with it being moved back down, would you like it is it just had the UCs there? Wiki Townsvillia n 10:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I know, I couldn't work out how to make a fake outer border for the table, and if I put the outer border on normal than it goes all the way out to include the UC notes on the side, but if we don't include the UC notes within the actual table then I don't know how to keep it lined up with the correct row in the table, I did quite a lot of looking to find a solution, but then I am still fairly inexperienced with this stuff and I have no experience in web scripting so kind of teaching myself. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 11:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How far right since the Fraser government?

While it is clear to most people that Fraser was not nearly as socially conservative as Howard or indeed much of his cabinet, the policy output during his term in office was far more conservative than that of the current government. So it is not only speculative to say they (the Libs) have moved further right socially since 1980, it's incorrect. Here are some current examples: The Fraser Government would not pass homosexual civil unions, stem cell research, 9% superannuation, the rule against perpetuity, the unusually large 2007 education budget, incentives for woman's early return to work program, having one of the worlds largest immigration programs etc. I'm old enough to remember, but don't take my word for it, do some homework and see. PS, I like your boxes, very nice collection indeed. I also support The Greens. Keep up the good work.

Liam alaghz

Hey TS, could you let me know if Liam alagh's adding of warning templates at the top of Kevin Rudd and Maxine McKew is appropriate? I would have thought that article protection is done by admins and all he is doing is adding false notices to articles which detracts from the article itself. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 10:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the articles should be protected, but I don't think there should be a warning template if it isn't actually protected. Wiki Townsvillia n 10:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senators

I'd fire an email off to the eminent Dr Carr. Michael ^talk 07:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunstan

I've made changes. If that's not enough, I'll rewrite it. Michael ^talk 03:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian politics

Hi Timeshift, I would have thought the 1998 Queensland election would be their highpoint not the 1998 Australian Election, at which election did they receive more votes? Wiki Townsvillia n 08:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timeshift, sorry for pretty much reverting your addition of Coalition, I didn't even realise I did it, I was revising what I'd written (before saving my edit to the talk page) without realising that you had changed my edit very soon after. Feel free to change it back to coalition, but I'd ask that you read my comments on the talk page first, particularly noting that the National and Liberal parties are not in coalition in many of the states. Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 12:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes I can see what you're saying about Rudd, which is why I think e-mailing his office would be the best option, would you be willing to do this? As for Howard it is tricky because he's been around for so long, he has gone from a fairly young man into what he is today all in very high profile positions in federal politics, no easy answer. Wiki Townsvillia n 12:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timeshift, what do you think of the table I've added to Queensland Legislative Assembly? I'm thinking of turning it into a template and adding it to all the Members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly articles. Your thoughts? Wiki Townsvillia n 12:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) now added to all the articles Wiki Townsvillia n 13:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Bill hayden

Hello I' m French and i have written a spring on Bill Hayden ; Can I use picture about him? Excuse me for my bad English.Berichard 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frome

In my opinion, the big table giving the results from the last election is unnecessary. It takes up a huge amount of the article, dwarfs the information on prior members, and focuses on information which I'm not sure are of much interest to a lot of readers. This could be compared with the former approach (still used in articles such as Electoral district of Port Adelaide), which conveys most of the important information (i.e. how all the parties did at the last election) without the statistical minutiae and names of all losing candidates. I just don't really see the point of converting from the concise to the full table; in the event that anyone needs that level of detail, we could easily link to the SEO website, and then we wouldn't need such a huge table in every electorate article. Rebecca 09:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you put a lot of work into this, which is why I hesitated in removing the table, and only removed it onto the Frome article. I'm just not convinced that the tables are very helpful; why is that information so necessary that we now need a table that is five times bigger than the alternative and dwarfs even the text of most of the articles? They're also not generally used on electorate articles in other states and territories and at a federal level. Rebecca 10:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I could put in my humble 2c, I think that the election results should be in there; but, if possible, find a nicer, cleaner and tidier box to put them in! Have a look at the tables in the British constituencies. :) Michael ^talk 10:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good example from a rather eccentric British MP. Michael ^talk 10:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To butt-in also, I rather prefer Michael's example. The tables as they stand are unfortunately a tad excessive.--cj | talk 12:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael's example would also work for me. Would that be acceptable, Timeshift? Rebecca 05:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, yes, assuming the 2pp figure and swing can be incorporated in to the table. Timeshift 06:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the answer lies with our first Prime Minister. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Division_of_Barton Timeshift 06:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a bad start, but I'm really not seeing the point of having the "turnout", "total formal votes" and "informal votes" sections. They take up quite a lot of space that is, IMHO, unnecessary, especially considering that turnout is virtually never a significant factor in Australian elections. Rebecca 06:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well take out the turnout, formal and informal bits and i'd be happy with that table. Timeshift 06:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As would I. Woo. :) Rebecca 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Prime Ministers

Hi TS, would you be interested in helping me out in creating a List of Australian Prime Ministers article along the same lines (chronological) as the List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition article? The current List of Australian Prime Ministers by time served is great, but I don't think that should be the primary list article for such an important position in Australian politics and listed by amount of time served is not the best parameter. Your thoughts? Wiki Townsvillia n 10:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, do you think it would clutter the article too much to add pictures to the table? Wiki Townsvillia n 12:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about going from the other angle, do you think there should be an article titled Australian Opposition Leader which incorporates the current list article? Wiki Townsvillia n 12:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral maps

Hi Timeshift. How are these electoral maps you're uploading, apparently from the AEC, public domain?--cj | talk 02:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they're not :) Timeshift 03:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You silly bastard! Ah, we need to find someone with map-making abilities. Michael ^talk 04:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, it might be worth just making sure that we link to electoral maps at the respective electoral commissions. We don't seem to have many map-making editors anymore - I think the ones we have have mostly left. Rebecca 14:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. The only active local editor I can think of who occasionally dabbles in cartography is Astrokey. The project's relevant department doesn't appear to be helpful.--cj | talk 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NDP

Vandal has continued under a floating IP - needs AIV/further next time Satu Suro 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

specially considering how many times the article has been interfered with Satu Suro 03:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has worked out how to do an edit summary am asking to try talk pages next, there may be hope Satu Suro 04:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's late

Leave me alone. Best wishes, Michael ^talk 17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PK Pics

I do like them! Well done. I elliot 12:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks very much. Hopefully this one isn't deleted, after the detailed rationale you provided. Recurring dreams 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian photos

Hi TS9, old Australian photos pre 1955 are in the public domain. see Copyright expiration in Australia. So please upload any good or suitable ones! GB 22:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TS9 - I interpreted a question you asked about uploading an old image. It looks like you have put up quite a few pictures lately! GB 11:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Hewson.jpg

Replaceable fair use

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

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 06:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey

I would not say Crikey is a reliable source as it is primarily based on tip offs and unverified gossip. I'm not saying it doesn't have truthful information but probably not reliable enough for Wikipedia. Michellecrisp 13:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Hi Timeshift, I'm not sure, I don't really have much experience in fair use fighting, all of the images I've uploaded have been my own work or over 100 years old from the State library archive. I think you've done a better job than I've seen anywhere else, but there may still be issues with the vitalness of the images to their articles, while I think the articles are improved greatly by the images I don't know if they are vital for demonstrating the subject matter, the Dunstan/Rann one in particular is a fantastic find but what part of the article does it demonstrate? Anyway that's my thoughts, I am no expert on this stuff and I haven't even read the relevant policies so I don't think my opinion should mean much. Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 11:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image:HowardAndBush.jpg Well done! Wiki Townsvillia n 03:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes the way they are turning on each other is hilarious, just like Labor has done many times, I've done up a little article on the local candidate here, could you check it out for me and give me a hand if you can? Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindness

To put it politely, you're screwed. The nazis will delete them all, you'll curse at your computer, and your mug will fall over and spill coffee into your keyboard. Michael ^talk 11:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a subpage just so you won't be disappointed. Remember, I'm doing this just for you TS, so you must be a very special boy. Michael ^talk 14:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would probably slap Rann on the back of the head for not being more supportive of socialism and people of your particular lifestyle persuasion. Michael ^talk 14:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever one may think of Dunstan's politics, he does appear to be a man of principle. What are Rann's principles, hm? Michael ^talk 03:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the problem of politics today: what the hell do these people stand for? Michael ^talk 03:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. I'll google once I've finished eating this Chiko roll, then get back to you. Michael ^talk 04:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the article I was very satisfied that it was neutral and balanced. Progressively, here and there, the wording has been changed to be more and more subtly positive. Just an observation, I'm too lax to do anything about it at the moment, as I'm still not *entirely* sure. Michael ^talk 05:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You get kudos points for that little compromise. Michael ^talk 01:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Election data

At Michael's suggestion, I've managed to get my hands on Dean Jaensch's new book with the full results of every election in SA history. I found a CD version of it, actually, so I've got all the information in PDF files. I know you tend to do a lot of work on SA elections, so I was wondering if you wanted a copy. Rebecca 04:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it doesn't have any pictures - just the detailed results themselves. Have you tried pictureaustralia.org for images of opposition leaders? I'd be pretty surprised if it didn't have images for them - I've found it has images for a substantial portion of the MPs in SA's colonial parliaments. Rebecca 04:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - I don't think I've seen a list. I did find a book once which might have a list for the early parliaments (through to 1950s-ish), but I can't remember the name. It was the source I used in creating the lists of the members of the early parliaments. I thought it was called the Biographical Register, but taking a look at the library records, that seems to be something else. It was called something similar, in any case. Rebecca 04:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1974 election

Hi, TS. I naturally understand why many folk want to reiterate the minutiae of 1975 at every opportunity. However, in the interests of orderly research and debate, etc, why don't you agree that it belongs in (or is best handled in) a 1975 timeslot? The par you have reverted is good stuff but should be in 1975 Australian constitutional crisis--which is what we should both be tacking together, IMHO. We have the problem of a group of articles on 1975, Whitlam, Kerr, Fraser Barwick, The Dismissal, etc, etc, all carrying overlapping info--very often contradictory, quite often passionately subjective, which makes for very confusing (and lengthy) reading. I'm one of those who would like to calm it down and clean it up. Please check the messages at Talk:John_Kerr#Cleanup_required. Cheers --Bjenks 06:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatigue

Comrade Timeshift, I will return. I'm just waiting for my FA to pass, and then I might do something interesting, or I might not. Perhaps you can throw some ideas at me for an FA? I might just take you up. Michael ^talk 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant photos

I have deleted all the redundant and uncaptioned photos you added to the Australian Prime Minister articles. Wikipedia is not a photo gallery and is not improved by multiple virtually identical photos. Also, the official PM portraits are not in the public domain. Intelligent Mr Toad 09:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bite me. You hear me? Bite me. I'm sick and tired of crap from people like you, I could be annoying like you too but I choose to be productive on wikipedia instead. Repeated again for the hearing impaired: BITE ME. Timeshift 10:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good form

"these images are older than 50 years. i will defend these to the death. your reverts will be futile." Keep it up lad. Michael ^talk 10:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh* No wonder sensible editors are leaving Wikipedia when it is infested with people like you. Intelligent Mr Toad 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go around slagging off people like me and Michael, take the time not to judge a book by it's cover. I can't speak for what would have developed if I weren't here, but I singlehandedly created the 1910-1993 federal election pages, and large redesigns of the remainder. I also made the SA 2006 election in to an FA, and Michael has done half a dozen FAs. SA elections go back to 1965 thanks to me. Wikipedia is now undoubtedly the best Australian election and Prime Minister resource in terms of what can be found at the one website. I challenge you to find a better place for information. I am not tooting my own horn but before you blame people leaving wikipedia on people like us "infesting" wikipedia, take the time to see what constructive contributions we make. As for myself, I do strive to maintain good faith and be civil but image nazis are my gripe on wikipedia. Fair use there is an argument for removal, but historic pictures, it set me off last night after continual attacks on what i've worked on for a long time. I apologise for the way I acted, I wasn't in the best mood last night, but realise that removing pictures over 50 years old doesn't improve wikipedia. If you have an issue with placement, layout, or lack of caption, then fix that particular issue. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Two examples, I had different images of Billy Hughes and Joseph Lyons until additional images were added, and they actually look quite different. I believe it is important to have multiple images as it shows different perspectives and ages, as long as there isn't half a dozen of them. Timeshift 04:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFP

thats their official policy, but since they are all christians i dont think they will like their official policy told to every onesone, esp the christians who vote for them, where as there is no proof it is a christian party apparently... 203.87.127.18 10:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look I agree. If it looks like a tiger and sounds like a tiger and smells like a tiger then usually it's a tiger - the voting public know this. There is no need to harp on about how christian the party is. They're christian, be it said or not. But don't make a mess out of wikipedia. Timeshift 10:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers from my end for reverting something, even if I know you're ideologically against the party—same goes with CJ. Michael ^talk 11:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about somthing thats gets 11 out of 23 candidates in one election from the same branch of the Assembly of God church? what does that look and sound like? User:203.87.127.18|203.87.127.18]] 12:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks and sounds like a standard political party and their associated interest group to me... Timeshift 23:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile :)

Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Bresignton

Please don't claim that. It does no one any good. --cj | talk 12:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resizing images

G'day mate,

Re: this, I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about honouring thumb size preference settings. The way I see it, people set their thumb size preferences for a reason, and we should honour them wherever possible. i.e. we shouldn't specify a thumb size unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

This is just some food for thought, in case you'd never really thought about it before.

Hesperian 06:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) Timeshift 06:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jollies

Either put the jollies back or give us a link to Timeshift's page of jollies elsewhere on the internet. Ta. Michael ^talk 12:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cows are on a subpage. Good boy. Michael ^talk 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain?

I don't like it when you accuse me of voting for One Nation! Oh and on a more serious note, did you see this? :D Orderinchaos 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin07

Can you believe it? Some copyright free photos!Recurring dreams 11:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless promotionalism, and very clever to boot. The ALP MPs had a field day with the site :-) (btw it also allows for photos of ppl like shadow treasurer wayne swan, and theres a good pic of him too) Timeshift 11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting development - the same copyright exists for alp.org.au - can we now use alp.org.au MP photos en masse now? Timeshift 11:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:RuddFamily.JPG

Replaceable fair use

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

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing image deletion, see Image talk:RuddFamily.JPG as image should not be removed as there is no copyvio. Timeshift 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped my opinion and a suggestion on the image page, in short its license still has too many conditions to be usable, Gnan garra 01:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Using 2001 census figures and boundaries before the 2004 election:

Of the divisions with 0-5% of the population from a non-english speaking country

11 ALP (24%)
35 OTH (76%)

Of the divisions with 5-10% of the population from a non-english speaking country

7 ALP (23%)
24 OTH (77%)

Of the divisions with 10%+ of the population from a non-english speaking country

46 ALP (60%)
29 OTH (40%)

Of the divisions with 20%+ of the population from a non-english speaking country

29 ALP (88%)
4 OTH (12%)

Of the divisions with 30%+ of the population from a non-english speaking country

10 ALP (91%)
1 OTH (9%)

Of interest; probably the most stark difference between ALP and coalition, besides income. Michael ^talk 07:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Howard

I really try to stay out of the political battles where I can, but I've taken a quick look at the article. I think there should definitely be some mention of AWB, but the current format of the article is a bit unbalanced and gives undue weight to recent things, so I'm not sure there should be any sections under "fourth term" at all. Rebecca 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rebecca. There's a little too much recentism. The AWB inquiry and other incidents of the fourth term do not require such extensive coverage. The AWB inquiry's greatest relevance in a biographical sense is that Howard was the first PM in several years to front an inquiry; coverage should thus not extend much beyond that. --cj | talk 00:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard has been the only PM in several years. There just doesn't seem to be any real relevance in the biographical article. I am sure that some people think that Howard cooked up the whole thing, took his own cut of the dough etc. and that his role has been heavily whitewashed, possibly by CIA operatives, but really, we need an actual solid link before we mention it at all. Did Howard say anything in his evidence beyond "I had nothing to do with it"? --Pete 03:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries deal with it by having pages for the governmental term - eg 4th Howard Ministry or some such. However this would be very difficult in the Australian context where there seems to be an endless game of musical chairs. There is cause for it to be covered within a Wikipedia context, it's more a matter of where. (If others have some idea on how to set up such articles, I'd be keen to hear them, I have access to some old journals and the like and it would be possible to go back quite a long way). Orderinchaos 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prime Ministers of Australia

Please see the discussion at Template talk:AustraliaPM. Thanks, --CapitalR 23:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on a Navbox fix

Hey, so I'm not going to put the Navbox back into that AustraliaPM template, don't worry. I just would like you to check out User:CapitalR/Test3 to let me know if those templates appear correct to you. In particular, check out the Presidents of the United States one about half-way down, as that is most similar to the AustraliaPM format (the case with an image but no groups was the problem). I made some modifications to the Navbox code and want to be sure it actually is fixing the right problem. Note that those templates are using a verison of Navbox in my sandbox, so other templates on real pages have not been modified yet. Thanks, --CapitalR 01:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the first 20 or so and they all appear fine. Timeshift 01:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btl

Hi Timeshift. Can I ask you to redact or rephrase the latter part of your message here. I've made a request to Jersey Devil to reconsider the block, and I don't think such comments will help in the matter. Thanks, --cj | talk 23:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it doesn't matter now. Michael's responded.--cj | talk 23:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Costello and Keating

I have an issue with including Costello, why don't we include Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd and various State Premiers and Treasurers who have also criticised Howard's economic record? Michellecrisp 06:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any of those people working side by side with Howard for the past 11 years managing Australia as leader and deputy leader of the Liberal Party... that is of course, except for Costello. To expand, Labor MPs criticise the Libs all the time, but the Libs criticising the Libs, especially the second-highest man to the highest man, is a much bigger deal. Timeshift 06:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then this should appear on Costello's own page (as it does) not Keating's page. Michellecrisp 06:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to back Keating's criticism of Howard, then we should list other prominent politicians that have criticised Howard's economic record (as this would back Keating's claim). I have no problem with it being kept on costello's page. Michellecrisp 07:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

opinion please

Hello

I thought that I would pop you a quick message. You seem to be a good and active wikipedian. Currently there is an article that I have been working on that is in the process of being deleted.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norvan_vogt

I don't really think that the reasons are all that valid however I am new to this and I didn't realise that Wikipedia was getting so dogmatic. If you have a moment could you have a look and see if the issues that have been raised are valid and either way maybe leave a comment or two. I have no idea how you stop it from being deleted.

Cheers Delvian

Replied at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norvan_vogt. Timeshift 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On bets and an older matter...

You asked me before about my thoughts about the FFP. It depends entirely on what state one is looking at. One has to remember the voter base they target outside of SA and QLD is divided all over the place. With the collapse of the Democrat vote, the FFP have a real chance of a senator from SA, as the flow from Dem to Green is somewhat overstated in its scope and tends to have split based on where the Dem voters originated from - Adelaide and Brisbane are still the Greens' two weakest cities even post-collapse (a la 2004 and subsequent state elections), and they have no impact at all outside the metro in both states. In QLD it's hard to tell - I would have said the Nationals would have increased their vote on the Barnaby factor there, but they've squandered that opportunity by joint ticketing with the Liberals. Another factor in QLD is this possible new party by Pauline (Pauline's United Australia Party or whatever - will party members be called paupers, party puapers or what?). In WA and NSW they have no chance because there is a bitter divide between the CDP and FF in those states - stupidity over byelections has led to the CDP calling FF traitorous (and a number of other choice adjectives) so I think the vote will continue to be divided here. Tasmania - FF really isn't part of the landscape there in any major way where far different issues to the rest of the country tend to prevail - I have always maintained ONP would have got a far higher vote in Tas if they'd actually been Tasmanian, as the TFP was a ragtag bunch which emanated out of the Shooters Party which many locals didn't trust anyway. They kept Harradine in for all those years but you have to remember that, firstly, he got replaced by a Green in the Senate, and secondly, he was ex-Labor (a DLPer of sorts I guess, 20 years too late). 6%? I doubt it, for all the above reasons. However I'd reason that their chances of a Senate seat in SA or QLD are moderate or higher. Orderinchaos 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Howard, Request for Comment

Hi Timeshift. I was following your work on the John Howard article, and the AWB issue. The AWB info seemed to get quickly deleted, but the person who deleted it did not first start a discussion (it was discussed later when another editor started a discussion). Personally, I found the AWB info useful and relevant. Did you see there is a Request For Comment at the bottom of the John Howard talk page? I'd be interested to see if you have an opinion to add to the subjects being discussed, as you had previously discussed similar issues earlier on the talk page. I guess I'm hoping that everyone can agree to treat each other's Wiki contributions with respect, and it would be interesting to hear what you have to say. Seeya, Lester2 00:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electorates

Thank you very much! I'm glad you like them. Eventually I suppose I'll have to get to the much more challenging task of the state divisions (there are thousands of abolished ones!). Frickeg 08:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George1966 Talk Page

Hi Timeshift. The request for permission was followed up, so I removed what was on the talk page. I don't check it often, so I didn't want to be reading through old problems if they had been resolved. If no objection, I'll remove it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George1966 (talk • contribs) 02:11, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Template:Leaders of the Liberal Party of Australia

I certainly don't care about this strongly but am interested as to why you say the show/hide button is useless? —Moondyne 02:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

warning

Thank you for your contribution to Talk:Alexander Downer, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. Thank you.diff Gnan garra 05:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Timeshift 05:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming good faith that your comment was meant to be funny and not a personal attcak Gnan garra 06:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your wikimood is becoming that close to "hostile", I think you should have a break. I'd hate to see you continue in this direction and end up being blocked again. Sarah 06:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my wikimood is largely a result of your actions Sarah. Gnan, assume that I was replying to accusations of partisan editing and that we need consensus before we can add to wikipedia. Sarah, nice circular arguments. You're all very tedious at the moment. Take it somewhere else please. Timeshift 06:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can add to Wikipedia but if there isn't consensus for your edit then it gets reverted. That's the point when consensus occurs: when people either decide to accept or revert your edit. Obviously, there is no consensus for your edit because each time you've added it you've been reverted. And please take responsibility for yourself, blaming others for your moods is not very mature. Sarah 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of take it somewhere else don't you understand? I am past the point of over this issue, I am not interested in the continuance of this one iota. Thankyou and goodbye Sarah, a pleasure as always. Timeshift 06:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>I agree that we work by consensus, WP:CONSENSUS explains this really well where by if an edit is added and not removed it has consensus through silence, but where an edit is removed then discussion should take place to establish consensus. It also says Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.. As for my warning I assumed you were get frustrated and tried to lighten the situation by adding a humorous comment, sometime it is better to take a break from an article for a few minutes or even days and rethink if its worth arguing. I'm saying this to you because ATM you appear to be getting upset over the situation. I see you above comment will this discussion as is, please conact me if can be of any help. Gnan garra 06:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without making comment on Timeshift's behaviour, I think it ought to be noted that posting boilerplate messages to established users is not good practice. WP:DTTR.--cj | talk 14:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done any hard work yet!

Hi Timeshift, thanks for the comment and compliment. As one of the most significant Australian political contributors I would hope that you would be willing to roll up your sleaves and put a bit into it, particularly in the early days while it is in the nucleus stage. I look forward to seeing how this collaboration will evolve! Wiki Townsvillia n 10:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that sucks! how did you find out about Downer's office? feel free to e-mail me if don't want others to read. if it counts for anything I greatly respect the quality and quantity of your contributions to wikipedia. Without contributors as enthusiastic as yourself for adding content, wikipedia would grind to a holt. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 11:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to my talk page and click on "E-mail this user" in the toolbox on the left. :) Wiki Townsvillia n 11:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Downer allegations

At the risk of getting my head bitten off, can you please tell me where your "name has been listed in a formal complaint by Downer's office...and that they have concluded that [you are] an active member of the young labor party and that they are trying to get info on [your] identity"? I have access to the formal complaints and other emails the foundation receives and I can't find any complaint from Downer's office in general, nor any complaint from anyone about you in particular. I even did a keyword text search on your username and got nothing. If you are referring to the email that Mike received, that wasn't a formal complaint and it wasn't about you. It was a reply to Mike's email explaining how Wikipedia works and it contained a general analysis of the article and areas they feel it is lacking. They did not complain about you or any named editor. Sarah 12:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed by a reliable source. I am certain of my claims. Timeshift 14:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, but what you are saying makes no sense. No one has written to the foundation about you. I don't know who is telling you otherwise but unless you elaborate what you mean by a "formal complaint" and back up what you are saying, especially with edit summaries like "what downers office has done with me personally - oh the revelations!" you're violating WP:BLP. BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just articles. I just want to help you because I think there is a serious misunderstanding here. I mean, you've only edited the Downer article five times in total; there is no reason you would even be on their radar. Sarah 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know how to make me a very enraged wikipedian, don't you? To my information, official channels weren't used and it's not viewable by the average wikipedia admin. It's short and brief on my user page, but respect it as there's no accusation leveled at a person anymore. That para aside, i'm over it, let's hope you are too. Timeshift 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide this information as you are implying that a person has made threats against an editor that is unacceptable, failing that please remove the paragraph you wrote prior to the Downer quote. Gnan garra 01:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Timeshift 01:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got your comment from my talk page, thats fine I just want to resolve this. To further that I've asked for a fresh set of eyes to look at whats been happening at WP:AN/I#Fresh eyes Please. The admins that respond from there will be totally uninvolved, please lets work together as its unacceptable for any editor to feel that people outside Wikipedia are threatening them in any way. Gnan garra 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions of your userpage

Hello Timeshift. Gnangarra and Sarah have explained to you that WP:BLP applies outside articles and the problem that causes with your recent claims. I won't labour the point- suffice it to say that I agree with them. As far as anyone can determine no complaint has been received about you. Anyway, I have deleted some revisions of your userpage that contain the material - you rather made that necessary by including the info in the edit summaries I'm afraid. Anyway, sorry about that but hopefully we can now all consider this matter closed and move on. You have obviously been a hardworking contributor to this project and have made many edits of high quality so I really do hope you won't be too put off by all this. If you are feeling rather stressed I encourage you to take a break - we're all volunteers here and participating in the project should be something enjoyable. Best wishes and I hope to see you around Wikipedia in future under better circumstances. WjBscribe 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fisher

No worries.--Grahamec 03:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;) trying to be articulate on a Friday afternoon is hell... plus the discussion had advanced a bit since I last chipped in. I'd like to see you add your perspective now that things might have died down a little with all that other stuff you were involved in. Wiki Townsvillia n 06:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should eventually have articles on the Lyons Government, Menzies Government, Whitlam Government, Fraser Government, Hawke Government, Keating Government, etc? Wiki Townsvillia n 06:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou!

Thank you very, very much! It's great to know that someone's watching. This is my first barnstar! Frickeg 05:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Costello

Your going to start hating me cause I seem to turn up with bad news all the time. I looked at the Costello Photo as I read the licensing its copyrighted, the public bit is that its viewable by anyone. Normally I'd just delete but I'll let you get a second opinion. Suggest you ask Pfctdayelise (talk · contribs) who's an admin on Commons and will have a better knowledge of Flickr images and how they are licensed. Gnan garra 01:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the image (Image:PeterCostello.JPG). I didn't see the note from Gnangarra here, I just noticed that the image is "© All rights reserved" on flickr, therefore not free, and not ok for Wikipedia. I think there was some confusion as the flickr page says "This photo is public", but that doesn't actually refer to the licensing of the image.--Commander Keane 06:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

You're going to have trouble if the images were taken since 1945, because of that discussion we had on the noticeboard a couple of months ago. Any taken before that, however, will be completely fine - just use the Aus-PD tag. Rebecca 03:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some obscure piece of US legislation that means that any image taken after 1945, even if public domain here, is not public domain in the United States, meaning that we can't use it. Irritating, but there's not much that we can do. Rebecca 03:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspoll

wow. Wiki Townsvillia n 14:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

I was just about to post the same thing on your talk page. How convenient that ChampagneComedy mysteriously reappears after five months just at the precise moment that Joestella hits 3RR, and keeps adding the same left-field edits and making talk page mutterings that seem to have less to do with any thoughts on the actual "It's Time" campaign than a general hatred of Whitlam. Rebecca 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lulz Orderinchaos 04:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a lame attempt. Same Wi-fi network? lol. Recurring dreams 01:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]