User talk:Timeshift9/Archive8

Kerry Rea page

Thanks for your feedback. I believe my edit was in keeping with COI as the previous addition was erroneous. Millennial (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Another dodgy Tony Abbott photo

I'm also a bit worried about File:Tony Abbott.png as it lacks metadata and is a suspiciously small size for a portrait. It was originally added to Wikipedia by Dimensional dan (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited since 2007. The photo claimed that it was taken of Abbott when he visited the editor's office. I've looked on Google images and couldn't find it, but given the age of the photo it may no longer be available online if it was taken from a news story. Do you see any reason to not nominate this for deletion at Commons? (other than the obvious problem that we'd no longer have any photos of Abbott - though I imagine that the Liberal Party's PR machine would soon fix that for us, particularly if we emailed them). Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

While it gives me no joy, I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons - if you'd like to comment, the discussion is here. My over-riding concern is that if it isn't deleted, it will be reused all over the internet as we get closer to the election. As where attribution is given it will be to Wikipedia or Wikicommons, this will lead to problems if it is a copyvio. Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia

It's definitely the better encyclopedia. I don't know why we bother ;) Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's one of many many second rate wikis that usually hold some form of grudge with wikipedia. Wikipedia has 3,145,923 articles, and 19,025,440 pages in total. There have been 357,370,173 edits. There are 869,754 uploaded files. There are 11,320,280 registered users, including 1,707 administrators. Conservapedia can keep him :) But he'll be back in some other form. 09:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, damn wikipedia... requiring reliable services. Not able to conveniently ignore what we don't agree with... Conservapedia is clearly the better choice. :rolleyes: --Austin de Rossi (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Australian Democrats

Timeshift, I just pasted comments on your revert at Australian Democrats. The changes I made I proposed almost two weeks ago. Please discuss your revert on the page. Thanks. Paul Roberton (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift, I took a step back after I obtained an ex-officio position with the party. I'd like to think I smoothed things over enough to tell you that I'm taking the article and talkpage off my watchlist and taking a long absence to work on the election campaign. I hope you enjoy the 2010, there's plenty more elections for you to document! Regards, Paul 14:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proberton (talk • contribs)

Keating photo

Hi, sorry about the misunderstandiong with the Paul Keating photo. I saw the "new" photo in Wikipedia Commons and assumed that it had been "approved" for use (that is, it had not been deleted). Regards, WWGB (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Timeshift (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Keating narrowweb 300x361,0.jpg now has been deleted. Bidgee (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Senator the Hon

Hi, looks like you know your stuff - good work on all the work you do in wiki. Quick question, why can't you add Senator the Hon in a sub page for Penny Wong? Can it only appear in her main page above her photo? Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.37.88 (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Garrett and Wong

Wong is also a Minister for the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts - under the Water part - the Department prepares letters, briefs, statements, policies, etc for her under her role as the Minister for Water. The Department of Climate Change does the same but for her as the role of Minister for Climate Change.

She doesn't head up the Department but is a responsible for Water issues under the department, the same as Mike Kelly. Here is the the Department's website, http://www.environment.gov.au/ check under the Ministers section.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.37.88 (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Official portraits

Hey, I have noticed that you edit a lot of politics related articles which is what bring me here as I am new to Wikipedia so I don't really know much but I have seen something that puzzles me. Why is it that on the articles about Australian pollies their are either no images or second rate ones like this one of Wilson Tuckey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wilson_Tuckey.jpg. I was wondering can we use their official portraits on the Government website even if their is some copyright (probably crown), cheers --SYDNEYres (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Because for living people, Wikipedia only allows free images. If an image has not been released in to the public domain, it cannot be used. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up --SYDNEYres (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Complete Rudeness

Any particular reason you are rude to people trying to clean up articles but you think don't belong ... or is it disagree with your view of the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalReviewer (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Because they don't belong, simple as that. I will be assuming bad faith and not continue any conversation with you as I am highly suspicious of who you are and what your motives are based on other situations on wikipedia over the past few days, your newness, your username, and the contributions you've made thus far. Cya. Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't me - my editing is all in good faith

Photoshop request

Hey Timeshift,

I need you to get someone who knows photoshop to pixelate the faces in Higgins_by-election,_2009_-_Toorak_polling_station.jpg. The woman in black objected to being photographed up close. I'd also appreciate it if you could add Clive Hamilton campaigning in higgins.jpg and Fiona Patten to the myriad articles they belong in. Cheers, Ottre 18:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Tough - that's her problem. The photo was taken in a public place. Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Atkinson

Timeshift: I have revised my original contrib to be more neutral and reposted. If you have an issue with this, please respond. ShawnIsHere (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded. It has no place on his WP:BIO. Timeshift (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe it does. It adds in another perspective (that of a non-supporter) and meets all the requirements. ShawnIsHere (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

An admin has already disagreed with you as do I. Only you support your perspective. Gain WP:CONSENSUS rather than forcing your views. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion opened, feel free to rebutt. ShawnIsHere (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate pages

Hi! The 2006 table there is pretty standard, so it's a good template to use - the only unusual thing is that usually all the sources are listed at the bottom of the page rather than the bottom of the table. As SA has no Coalition your job will be much easier, as you won't need to worry about having (Lib) and (Nat) after every Coalition candidate. (Still a big one, but these are among my personal favourites to make.) There's a lot of patience involved, too. Step one is to decide on title headers. I'd say for SA the only ones you'd need at this stage are ALP, Lib, Greens and Family First - there's no one else we can guarantee will run in a sufficient number of seats to earn a column to themselves (except maybe the Democrats). Looking at 2006, the Democrats should at least move further to the right of the table, as the Greens and Family First are definitely more important to the election. Then it's on with the show. I personally find it easier to type the tables rather than the back-spacing, but that's a personal preference. I also tend to have a linked party name on the clipboard (i.e. copy and paste), but if you're doing the backspacing thing that's not so important. The Legislative Council should be fairly simple, I would think. Let me know if you need any help - have fun and good luck! Frickeg (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

RE the LC, goodness knows. The upper house is always harder to find info for. It's possible they haven't actually been selected yet, of course. If they have, Antony's election guide can't be too far away, so we'd just have to wait for that. Frickeg (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What's awkward about it? Frickeg (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's just because it's early days. If you look at other tables (here, or here), you'll see that actually there's the same spacing there. It'll clear up and look much more normal when more candidates with longer names come and widen up the columns. Frickeg (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible, and if it is it would involve a whole heap of complex coding, I'm sure. It'll look OK by the time all the candidates are announced. Frickeg (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I've done the Tasmanian one here. Can you see anything I've missed? Frickeg (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Have we got two Bob Randalls here? The Family First Party page says that Bob Randall, a "former Liberal state MP and party president", joined the party. There's also the Bob Randall who was Liberal MP for Henley Beach 1979-82 and ran for the Senate for the CDP in 1998. (This is definitely the second Randall.) Are they the same, or different? On another note, does this mean that Brokenshire's retiring? Frickeg (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just in case it wasn't clear, these are in fact the same bloke. I think he may have rejoined the Liberal Party for a while in between his two fundie experiments, though. Rebecca (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You can understand my lack of belief, though.

I mean that's actually creepy. HalfShadow 04:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You poor fucker you...What's next; thought police? Sad times. HalfShadow 04:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tammy Jennings

A tag has been placed on Tammy Jennings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Tammy Jennings

I have nominated Tammy Jennings, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammy Jennings. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ttonyb (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hi Timeshift,

I recently proposed the deletion of Doug Anthony, an unsourced Biography of a Living Person. You removed the tag, but have not improved the article by adding even a single source. Can you please add some sources to the article? Even a few would be great. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 10:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to jump in, attempting to prod delete articles about people who are plainly notable like a former deputy Prime Minister of Australia is a spectacularly unhelpful action. If you're worried about unreferenced BLPs, notify the relevant Wikiproject and/or edit out any dubious material yourself and/or take the time to look for some sources yourself. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

A person who is "plainly notable" shouldn't have had an unreferenced biography for three years. I'm not disputing the fact that he's notable. I'm asking for references to be added, per the WP:BLP policy. It's the right thing to do to help protect against inaccuracies in biographies. As far as "editing out dubious material", material which is completely unreferenced is dubious material, as you must know by now. I'm trilled that the bio has improved already. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of references does not give way to a prod. Simple. Timeshift (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that, Timeshift? In point of fact, another admin has been mass-deleting these pages. I figured a prod tag gave editors a chance to improve the content. But simply removing a tag doesn't improve an article. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't have to. Clearly seeing that the article is about an MP who was a deputy PM shouldn't be prod as it clearly already states notability, next it will be deputy Presidents. Sorry for jumping in on your talk page, Timeshift. Bidgee (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have all Australian PMs and Deputy PMs on my watchlist (over 2200 pages in total). I've never seen a prod so brazen and silly and unfounded as this. Nobody in their right mind would ever support the deletion of a Deputy PM just out of lack of refs. Just stop, move along and act like you never even prodded it, it's probably best for everyone... Timeshift (talk)

I don't support "the deletion of a Deputy PM". I support the deletion of a completely unsourced article on a Deputy PM. Unsourced Biographies of Living People have the potential to harm the subject of such articles, and have the potential to harm Wikipedia, should lawsuits be filed for defamation. That's one good reason to source articles, and to delete articles which have absolutely no sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but WTF! Anything that may be unsourced and fails WP:BLP should be removed from the article but doesn't necessary mean that the article about a notable person should be deleted, maybe inform the relevant project(s) to improve it but not delete it. Bidgee (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Firsfron, I'd suggest that when you are in a hole, stop digging. This would be a snowball keep at AfD if nominated. Prod is meant to be used for uncontroversial deletions. Using it for anything else is an abuse of the process and likely falls under disruptive editing. Orderinchaos 12:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't nominated at AFD; it was prodded in the hopes that sources would be provided; sources have been provided, and the article is already improving. It certainly was not improving during the past three years that it was completely unsourced; prodding it helped the article, and may help other prodded articles as well. Prodding is indeed meant for uncontroversial deletions, from WP:SOURCE: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article". All one has to do to stop the deletion is remove the tag: very simple. When the tag was removed, I didn't revert it, but I did ask the reverter to add some sources. This is certainly within policy, and it seems reasonable to me. I think it should to you, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He said snowball keep at AfD IF nominated, he never said it was. And the rest of your post is pure rubbish. Timeshift (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Chillin necessary

Hi...I don't normally resort to leaving any kind of warning on a regulars talkpage, so don't mistake this for one....it's just that your comments at this AfD jar a little (and some of your replies right here on this talkpage do too). I know I don't need to direct you to pages about civility, and I'm sure that you know it's sometimes best to take a pause before replying to people, so 'nuff said. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Stupid AfD, stupid comments... Timeshift (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that shouldn't be how it works - why don't you just present your "keep" case, others will present their opinion, and consensus will do its work. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No GST

Aargh! And I thought I'd been so careful too! Frickeg (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but not very carefully, obviously. Generally I use the preview screen to fix obvious errors (like formatting) so I get out of the habit of checking other obvious things like that. Just slipped through. Fixed now though. (These take ages to do, too, because the stupid AEC doesn't have full results for the pre-2004 elections, so I have to add them up myself. Swings are a pain too ...) Frickeg (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's a good idea to have the full results like that, or like 2007, would it be better (also for consistency) to have a summary table, and then full results on a sub-page? Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Rann - (Sorry, couldn't think of a better subject)

Regarding your revert. Given the current circumstances, I'm OK with it. But normally, I'd think you were being a bit "pushy".
Do you think the claim is questionable?
Or are you just reacting to the laziness of the guy who posted it?
Or is there some other factor I haven't thought of? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like to see a standalone "citation needed" in the article of a Premier less than 2 months away from an election. It wasn't a critical piece of info, it wasn't fixed up, on balance I thought it was best removed. Timeshift (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. I agree completely. But you haven't addressed my question. From your reply, I'm guessing you're saying that you're "reacting to the laziness of the guy who posted it". Yes? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really think about it to be honest. Sometimes it is out of laziness. Timeshift (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(You wouldn't be a politician yourself would you? (Attempt at humour.))

Well yes, but you must have had a reason. Did you revert it because it was a "loose end", because you felt the claim was questionable, or for some other reason? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Loose end - as I said, I didn't like seeing a singular citation needed for something that really wasn't that important, in an article of a government leader less than 2 months from election. Timeshift (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk)

Rann's behaviour

this fails noteability, we aren't starting a list of places
Yes, the contribution should have been reverted, because of lack of relevance to the article in general, and to that section in particular.
I disagree that it "fails noteability", and it has absolutely nothing to do with "a list of places".
If the article had a section addressing Rann's behaviour, it would be highly relevant. But the article doesn't.
Given the sensitivity & timing of the topic, I think you should choose your words more carefully.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It does fail noteability in regards to the section. The section is meant to be concise. It is not meant go to over stuff that really doesn't assist in giving a picture of the issue, it's just fluff. It is not a place for a WP:LAUNDRY list of places Rann allegedly avoids/avoided. Timeshift (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? As I said, it's irrelevant, but I don't see what that has to do with "notability", nor how it "fails notability".

The section is meant to be concise. - Yes.

It is not meant go to over stuff that really doesn't assist in giving a picture of the issue - Yes. That's what "relevance" means.

it's just fluff. - No. I disagree strongly. As I said: If the article had a section addressing Rann's behaviour, it would be highly relevant to a behaviour section. It's just irrelevant to this section.

It is not a place for a laundry list of places Rann allegedly avoids/avoided. - 1) It's not "alleged". 2) Rann didn't avoid the place, he avoided the event in order to avoid the person.

I repeat: Given the sensitivity & timing of the topic, I think you should choose your words more carefully.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your latest foray

[1], [2] - Come on, get a grip. If you revert with nothing better than WP:I just don't like it, you're going to get hammered from ALL sides. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. I don't understand what you are trying to communicate with this edit. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

CNZM

You reverted my edit mentioning that CNZM are not approved post-nominal letters within the Australian honours system. You are correct, of course, but it is entirely appropriate for Mr Rann to include these post-nominals after his name whether or not they have a specific order of precedence. In fact, the site you directed me to -- [3] -- indicates that foreign awards can be worn, but that they are given the lowest precedence. Surely the article on Mike Rann would not be viewed only in Australia, thus the post-nominal letters should be included.

Lovek323 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirected your query. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

<snip> - full conversation at User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive17#CNZM --Pdfpdf (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And until such time as Lovek323 gets WP:CONSENSUS for their changes, they will keep it off the Rann page. Additionally, if Lovek323 and Pdfpdf wish to continue discussion, they can do it on their own pages. Have a lovely day everyone. Timeshift (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

About my edit

You edited my page first as can be seen. Your objection is hypocrisy DavidHuo (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Victorian 2006 election

Would you be able to have a look at the polling section and work your magic on it? Thanks :) Orderinchaos 09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike Rann

Hi, I've made a comment about your reversions at the talk page. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In your latest posting, you've said: "I believe the Advertiser poll can be used here" - I'm guessing that's a typo?

(If not, then I'm really confused by your posting.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(In case I'm not on your watchlist.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:SA06posters.PNG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SA06posters.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike Rann (again)

In case you haven't already seen, check the talk page. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For putting unsightly tags on Rann's page that seem WP:POINTy if not anything else. Timeshift (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL!

Thank you for being more concerned about appearances and your own POV than about facts, accuracy and unsubstantiated claims. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey! "If the shoe fits." That's what you said - I didn't put the words in your mouth.

See Mike Rann and Talk:Mike Rann. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Request

Greetings. I wish to ask you to think before you edit.

My (recent) experience is that you have done a number of unsound things (recently), and made a number of unwise comments.

Normally, most people (me included) would think your responses a bit strange, but ignore them.

However, the ones I'm seeing are related to the Mike Rann article, and as there is an election on the horizon, I feel it would be wise for ALL editors to think hard before they hit the "save" button and consider how their contributions may be interpreted by others. It would also be wise to be VERY sure of any statements, assertions and accusations.

Your assertion starting with "Don't dare accuse me" is a particular case in point:

1) I didn't "accuse" you of anything. Read what I wrote. Pause. Read it again. Think.

2) WP:AGF. If it upsets you, take a step back. You might be reading something into it that's not there.

3) Lose the aggressiveness. It not only achieves nothing, it tends to antagonise the reader.

As I have either said or implied previously, I wish to work productively WITH you. But you don't seem to be reciprocating. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

By-the-way: I'm not seeking a response. Should you choose to make one, that's your choice. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to take the moral high-ground when the suit doesn't fit. Timeshift (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party

I protected it due to an anticipated attack from an external website (will provide more detail if you're curious). Unprotected now. -- Pakaran 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Timeshift9. You have new messages at Pakaran's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Pakaran 04:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Current pendulum for the next Australian federal election

Hi - while I agree with you that you cannot simply plonk Wright in on this one, would you object if I incorporated the redistribution changes, including Wright, Durack and McMahon, since the page does say it's for the next election? Frickeg (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I'll get to it in due course. Hang in there. Frickeg (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

offtopic

Have you seen this: article in The Age? Hilarious! --Surturz (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

S.A. Current pendulum

Have you started work on a pendulum for the next S.A State election? I know it's early days but seats could possibly be arranged. Im about to go start work on the next QLD State election. Wikistar (Place order here) 09:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a point until results are final. And it won't be hard, just swapping seats and margins around. Timeshift (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Paul Lennon.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Paul Lennon.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, the image nazis are out again! :D Timeshift (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

SA 2010 Election - Don Pegler

You're quite right. I think I was just impatient to see information added about the guy who will almost certainly be the member. Donama (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Weirdness

Have a look at the booth results for Frome, noting that Solomontown and Risdon Vale are basically Port Pirie suburbs and Napperby's only just out of town. Seems Brock won about 80% of the vote in Port Pirie, and lost everywhere else (except Gladstone), although this seems to have been enough to carry the electorate. Orderinchaos 12:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

South Aliens always have a weirdness don't they? :P (Just a sarcastic joke). Bidgee (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Georganass.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Georganass.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Georganass.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Georganass.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Senate 2/3 cut off

Hi, since your an active Australian interested in politics, was wondering whether you could tell me what it meant by the above term in the parliamentary sitting calender. Thanks 211.30.101.252 (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No isbn

There is no ISBN because People and Place is a peer reviewed academic journal published by the Centre for Population and Urban research at Monash University. The article mentioned contains a great deal about Latham and the 2004 election. I checked the catalogue of the NLA and there is no ISBN. I disagree that only books with ISBNs should be shown. For example books published before some time in the late 1960s did not have ISBNs and biographies of Prime Ministers and material on them would be very deficient if ISBNs had to be shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carola56 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies I forgot to add my signature.Carola56 (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

On reflection I agree that the journal article is better placed in a footnote and not in the further references, although it does deal with the 2004 elections, but I think it better the references shown should be primarily about Latham and not the election in which he was ALP leader. Thank you for your help. Carola56 (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Electoral_district_of_Light

Hi Mate do you mind telling me what the issue is with my latest post for the Seat of Light. As far as Im aware i've fixed all the exsisting issues, which I missed on my first attempt. Runger 999 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

more Rann

"it actually links to the wrong article... this one would be the best fit" - Well spotted. (I didn't even think to look!) Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That guy has been vandalizing pages I think

The guy that added that Islamist party to the Australian political parties page has edited a heck of a lot of countries' pages. I suspect he is vandalizing most of them, even though the organization he inserts is legitimate. As such, I have only reverted a few of his edits. I'm not exactly sure what to do. 72.93.241.60 (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Timeshift9. You have new messages at Lear's Fool's talk page.
Message added 13:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Isobel Redmond

Hey, I've left a note on the talkpage. The reverts are probably not helpful, and both of you have broken WP:3RR. Let's have it out on the talkpage before things get further out of hand. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Results tables

Yes, I was the crazy person who said I loved doing these. I'll get on it as soon as I've finished the essay I'm working on, which is due on Thursday. :) Frickeg (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. Getting onto these, I notice we don't have articles about a lot of the new parties (Save RAH, Free Tax, United, etc.). This messes with the tables something shocking, so do you know somewhere with good information on these? Also, is there any colour associated with any of them, or with D4D? Frickeg (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Kind of a necessary evil - there was a stage there where I had just white for all the minor parties, but it didn't work very well and seemed to suggest some sort of lack of registration. I've tried to base them on the party logos as far as possible. Frickeg (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember a discussion a few years ago where I asked about this, and the consensus was that arbitrary colours was OK - after all, the main point of the colours is to distinguish the parties from each other, and grey doesn't do this very well. (I have to get off the computer now, but I'll be back in a few hours if you want another response.) Frickeg (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The best thing about doing this is finding interesting results I'd missed on the night when paying attention to the important things - for example, did you know that Family First beat Labor in Chaffey? And while on the subject of election tables, I've been racking my brains to think of a way to do the Tasmanian election. Any ideas? Frickeg (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll say it was bizarre - such massive swings in all the seats but those where they were needed. Sign of a shocking Liberal strategy, I have to say. I may try to tackle Tasmania after SA, but I'll probably have to experiment around a bit first to see if I can get a nice table ... Frickeg (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I went off Antony Green for the swings, having checked that his figures were the same as the Electoral Commission. Antony's swings came off the redistributed margins. I luckily didn't end up needing to calculate anything, which was a relief. Frickeg (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

I don't really know what to say, but many, many thanks. It's great to know that it's all appreciated! :) Frickeg (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

When I first joined Wikipedia, I was editing over at WikiProject Mammals, but my interests were changing and I found myself moving more towards Australian politics. I remember noticing then how few editors were involved with the project (and how hardworking those few editors were), and thinking that here was somewhere where I could really help out. I mean, today, I could probably count the active OzPol editors on my fingers. So I'm glad to have been able to contribute! (Although I've still got so many things on my to-do list - state MPs, past election results, even some of the federal MPs don't have images yet ...) If you do decide to try and get SA 2010 up to FA, I'd be glad to help out in any way I can! Frickeg (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re One Nation, etc.

Is it just me or has there been a big increase in vandalism over the past few days? A lot of it has focused on this article, probably due to all the stuff about Hanson not selling her house to Muslims. Semi-protection, do you think? Frickeg (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I agree. :) Perhaps just keep a eye on this one, then ... Thanks! Frickeg (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that you wouldn't. It was more meant as "let's just keep an eye on it", as in let's just leave it for the time being. Frickeg (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Map8-2007.GIF

A tag has been placed on File:Map8-2007.GIF requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim1357 ^talk 05:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Image at 1975 Australian constitutional crisis

I won't remove it again right now, but if it is queried at FAC, I'm going to have to. Personally, I think the image of Whitlam looming behind David Smith as he reads the proclamation is better, but it got axed when I nommed the Whitlam aritcle for FA. I don't think there is any way to adequately fix it under WP:NFCC but we'll see. Thanks for your thoughts. The article is presently at PR, I'd be grateful for your thoughts there, or when I nom for FA, as well as those of the other Australian politics mavens who frequent your page.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Help regarding images from the State Library

Hi, I'm just wondering if you give me some advice regarding the copyright status of images from the SA State Library. I'm trying to find a decent picture of Union Hall (the current one on the article isn't great), and I've come across a couple from pictureaustralia.org, in particular this one. It was taken before 1955, so the copyright hasn't expired, but do you know whether images from the State Library are under a licence compatible with Wikipedia?  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you ask me again in a week or so? Sorry just busy. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pre-eminent enduring Sovereignty?

I've realised since standing for our 2007 Australian Parliament with our Australian Democrats Party campaigning Kingston Candidate that you are a significant Political wikiEditor & we whitefellas have absolutely no real Sovereign Authority thus what is your view on 1stNations' Pre-eminent enduring Sovereignty especially Ramindjeri-Ngadjuri on who's Yerta (lands) you live, learn & earn & possibly born & bred? Mifren (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh...? I'm not here to get in to aboriginal vs whitefella debates. Timeshift (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

About Keating's Images

Why is the image of Keating from Flickr(that I recently uploaded and got reviewed by flickrreview) not compatible with wikipedia's copyright policy??? It does have a creative commons license......  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daffy123 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 

Lang Labor in New South Wales

Hi Timeshift9

There is a discussion on Lang labor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Your input would be greatly appreciated if you are about Many thanks Porturology (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Kristina Keneally

Hi. Just checking in why you removed matters of fact relating to the NSW Premier's term in office. Thanks Jherschel (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't patronise me, I don't have time for socks. I'll let an admin deal with you. Timeshift (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. Bidgee (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. All you had to do was show some courtesy. I din't realise it was that much of an effort to be polite :-) Jherschel (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll modify slightly. Don't patronise me, sock. Better? How about this? The house of socks will soon come tumbling down. ;) Timeshift (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Bub?

As per your revert at Kevin Rudd, 'bub' is that a term for a new user? Bamborough (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Now please take it to the Rudd talk page. Timeshift (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess ...

You're probably right. There must have been an obvious one lately (and I suppose my editing does follow a sort of pattern, so it wouldn't be that hard to work out). Although if s/he does this much research on a single Wikipedia editor, you wonder how much of a "newbie" they really are ... Frickeg (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party leadership election, 2010

Good lawd. It's WP:V. --Surturz (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unprecedented. Speechless. As opposed to Libs like you who criticised him from day one, despite Rudd achieving a peak of 63% 2PP and 73% PPM vote in Newspoll. :) It'll be interesting to see how Gillard goes (she will win), cause we all know Abbott is just as unpopular going by the sat/disat in the 30s/50s. No opp leader has won an election this close with the 2PP and sat/disat where it is. Timeshift (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lulz at how much of your personal time you wasted censoring the Kevin Rudd page for several years. Justice. Highvale (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I never censored it. You're just incredibly biased :) Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The partisan loyalties of editors should not be a factor in editing an encyclopaedia. Perhaps we can have Julia Gillard's page here reflect reality, rather than being something her office would approve? --Pete (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Crawling out of the woodwork hey Pete? ;) Timeshift (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Given the chance, Julia Gillard will resurrect Labor's fortunes and will almost certainly go on to win the election."[4] "Punters have thrown their weight behind a Julia Gillard-led Labor party with its odds shrinking to $1.38 to win a second term in power this year."[5]. Meanwhile, poor ol' Tone is languishing on a satisfaction in the 30s and a dissatisfaction in the 50s. He is electoral poison :) Timeshift (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

20s now. Orderinchaos 10:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You're referring to his PPM rating going from 37 to 29. I'm referring to his satisfaction/dissatisfaction ratings here. Abbott's approval has actually gone up and disapproval gone down, but I suspect that's because of the way he was treating Rudd and people didn't like it. Abbott is faltering on PPM and the actual vote. But anything can happen. Timeshift (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, if you get the chance have a look at this week's Q&A (I watched it online) - was very interesting. Orderinchaos 17:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work

...on scoring the Paul Keating pic. I've replaced the appropriate refs on the French and Polish wikis accordingly. Orderinchaos 10:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't me :) Timeshift (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooops... having one of those days I think. Good work as above to Connormah, then :) Orderinchaos 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Keating Image

I figured it'd be good to try to get a better image from him - this is one of the few times I have successfully been able to persuade someone on Flickr to release their image under CC. Cheers, Connormah (talk | contribs) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Gutless Wonder

Ming was the only militia member to resign his commission in 1914/15 - you know that. Can you find any other example? There isn't one.Silent Billy (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, it doesn't matter, it needs a cite. Secondly, the words used are very point of view (perhaps uniquely? manliness?). Thirdly, especially with the brackets it looks like an ad-hoc insertion, and wasn't suitable as part of an encyclopedic biography. Fourthly, the way you referred to him there and here indicates you have an axe to grind (and I hate the Liberals). If you have a cite, you could add an actual sentence such as "he was the only militia member to etc etc", rather than what you did attempt. Don't take it as personal criticism, it's just the wikipedia facts of life. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Julia Gillard image

It IS a free image, it's from her own facebook page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyn116 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection between an image of Gillard found on her Facebook image, and a free image. Timeshift (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I must have missed that storm. Thanks for the headsup. Donama (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Kent

Sidcup was under the jurisdiction of the Kent County Council prior to the creation of Greater London in 1965. Before then "London" was just the County of London which corresponds more to what we now call Central London. In 1965 the Central urbanized area and many of then then-suburbs were amalgamated into Greater London - including mostly suburban Sidcup. When Sidcup was founded it was formally called "Sidcup Urban District of Kent". As Mr. Rann was born prior to the 1965 amalgamation it should be appropriate to say he was born in Sidcup, Kent. As to how a person would be listed in the United Kingdom people are listed by specific locality of birth rather than the United States model of listing people by state on diplomatic documentation, for example my British passport says I was born in Chelsea, but an American passport might report that I was born in Massachusetts (though my actual American passport simply says "United Kingdom". While this is a rather long winded explanation for a very simple edit, suffice it to say that both your version and my version are appropriate and the previous Sidcup, England comes from a common misunderstanding of the difference between "England" and the "United Kingdom". Cheers
(-- Aricci526 21:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Resource tax advertisements

Hi Timeshift9, I obtained those figures from the ABC. I too am wondering about the indiscrepancies in the figures, perhaps the mining lobby got a good deal? Or maybe they lied about how much they spent on the ads? Perhaps the federal labor government also lied? I don't know and don't have the time to investigate. Nick carson (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Election date

Yes, a RS is needed. But it's would have been fun to have been the person who added the date, and I don't blame them for not adding the source at the time ;) I hope that you don't mind the revert. Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

True. Let the election-related edit wars begin! We should consider some kind award for the candidate who edits their own page the most ;) Nick-D (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

2PP graph

File:Federal ALP 2PP polls 2008 to 2010.svg. Do you know where I could find a source for the Galaxy polling?  -- Lear's Fool 03:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For the primaries graph, should I put the Democrats on there? :)  -- Lear's Fool 07:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Lear's Fool's talk page.  -- Lear's Fool 08:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Lear's Fool's talk page.  -- Lear's Fool 10:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.  -- Lear's Fool 06:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion polls

I know you have a very different idea of the usefulness of opinion poll data in auspol articles, so I'd love to hear your views on my thoughts here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Use_of_opinion_poll_data. --Surturz (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I really do find opinion polls as interesting as you seem to, you know. I just don't think they belong in mainstream wp articles. Perhaps there would be a case for making timeline style articles - one column has the particular poll measure (2PP, preferred PM, whatever) and a column running alongside listing notable events alongside in chronological lock-step with the poll data. That way we avoid WP:SYN because we don't need to prove that a particular polling change was 100% due to a particular event... also it may even be interesting if a notable event has no effect on the polls. A line graph of each opinion poll measure with callouts to the notable events would be awesome. --Surturz (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah! Just noticed Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2010. Good one! --Surturz (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of the leaders

I've responded to your comments about the graphs on my talkpage. I was just wondering, do you know where there's an itinerary for Abbott and Gillard's campaign stops? I wanted to see if I could get some better pictures of them when they come to Adelaide, and it may be worth putting some sort of notice on WT:AUP with when they'll be in what city. That way members of the WikiProject can try to grab some better images when they come through their cities.  -- Lear's Fool 06:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions (re Boothby)

Regarding your changes:

[6] huh? i'm removing the lot of it based on the fact wikipedia ozpolitics is no longer a 2 bit operation. we have standards, not each page for itself. standards please.)

The only bit of that I understand is, "not each page for itself", which seems like a reasonable request. OK. No problem.

"we have standards" - I'm sure you have. Please tell me more. i.e. Please supply me with some links so I can read your standards.

"i'm removing the lot of it based on the fact wikipedia ozpolitics is no longer a 2 bit operation."
I'm not sure how "wikipedia ozpolitics", "2 bit operations", and my edits are related.
Do you think you could be a little more explicit and enlightening as to what are the problems you have with my edits?
Is it mainly the fact that I haven't used the template?
Do you have an objection to the inclusion of older data if it uses the template?
Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

[7] and these too. to argue for a change in division article layouts/designs then go to somewhere like wikiproject talk.
Also seems like a reasonable request. OK. No problem. Do you think you could provide me with a link? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

[8] nor are we hare to second-guess the AEC. removing complete and utter WP:OR
I'm not "second guessing" the AEC - the simple fact is that the AEC classification is wrong.
http://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/party-codes.htm#Demographic%20ratings says that the AEC Demographic ratings are:

• Inner Metropolitan – situated in capital cities and consisting of well-established built-up suburbs.
• Outer Metropolitan – situated in capital cities and containing large areas of recent suburban expansion.

The fact is: Boothby is "situated in capital cities and consisting of well-established built-up suburbs."
There is NO "Original Research" involved, this is an easily demonstrated and easily referenced fact.
How do you suggest I address such a situation where the quoted information is incorrect? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

[9] remove electors
Have you any idea why this person keeps removing this information? (His edit comments only tell what he's done, not why he's done it.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in the mood for circles today sorry. Timeshift (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rudd

How was that an awful image, it is front on, the subject is smiling, and it is when he is at the top of his career winning his only election and becoming Prime Minister. What is your proof that it is not free, show me a source image anywhere that proves that it is not free. I dont appreciate your aggressive tone either. E.3 (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the current image is not as front on, is not in focus, and is not at the election winning moment which defined the subject's career. How is that a good image when we have sourced a better one? E.3 (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Brokenshire

Sorry about that, I was editing the article and you had reverted. I have back-reverted the article to your version, although included additional information form his official profile. If there is still disputed changes, please advise. ID9283672385 (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Epic lulz

I will stay the full term --Surturz (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. Check out the recentish Conversation Hour podcast with Blanche D'Alpuget and Don Watson. Awesome stuff. linky

Your revert

Re: "we don't refer to leaders/premiers/pm's etc like this on historical articles". Please indicate the source of this rule/policy/guideline. Anna Bligh was not Premier when that photo was taken. To label her as such is historically inaccurate. WWGB (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert on order of points

Either fix up the order of the points in the previous paragraph, or learn to write a thesis where order of the content matches the order in the outline. 122.109.149.94 (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you on about? I think the sofixit template applies here...

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

2nd Debate

I'll say it's gold. Not only has the ALP blinked by getting rid of Rudd, now Gillard has shown how scared she is of Abbott. She's resorting to tawdry tricks like trying to spring a surprise debate on the date scheduled for the Liberal Party campaign launch. The ALPs 2PP is heading south and the stakes are high - if Gillard loses the ALP will be in the wilderness for a decade. Personally I think there will be a big difference between the opinion polls and the actual vote count. Women are never going to tell a pollster that they are voting based on gender, but once in the privacy of the polling booth I think many will find it hard to vote out the first female PM of Australia, no matter how inept she is. You hate Abbott, but what does it say about the ALP if they've made the Mad Monk electable? hehehe --Surturz (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Abbott's killed off the ETS, the RSPT and Kevin Rudd. He's making ALL the government decisions. Real Julia certainly isn't :) she's already backflipped twice in the campaign and can't even stop her own party leaking against her. --Surturz (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet, the ALP didn't think KDudd could beat Abbott, and the leakers in the ALP don't think Real Julia _should_ beat Abbott! Even if Real Julia wins, there is cancer in the ALP. Leaking _during_ an election campaign... it's crazy! What else can they hope to achieve except that the ALP loses office? Real Julia has three years as Deputy PM, and several weeks (months?) as Acting PM, and she can't even work out the difference between the East Timor President and the East Timor Prime Minister? --Surturz (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

KRudd image

I've added a cropped version of the DOS image, which I believe addresses your valid concerns about the half-body shot. Tell me what you think.  -- Lear's Fool 05:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe 5 people voted for that Feb 23 photo. Doesn't a one of them have a working eyeball? --Surturz (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I'm sick of people voting for clarity over a good shot. Some people have strange ideas on what consistutes a good photo. Timeshift (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)