User talk:Timeshift9/Archive11

Topic ban for welshboy?

Yes, I realise that it's only a brief topic ban that's been proposed. But I mean what I said. That in itself won't teach him anything. I think he's learning anyway.

The AN/I process is seriously flawed. It allows disgruntled players to pile on while angry and just let off steam, building up an often unfair and dishonest case against a miscreant who has no real way of defending himself against bullshit

(I speak from personal experience here.)

HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would very strongly advise you to not make any further contributions to the AN/I thread. Other, previously uninvolved editors are now commenting and there is absolutely no need to stir the pot with contributions like this one. You'll notice that there was a suggestion that you too should be topic banned for your disruptive editing and comments like that one would tend to make me support such a proposal. Far better for you if you now leave the case against your protagonist to other people. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Question, what would you label the 25-35 percent of Australian Green voters who preference the Liberal Party above the Labor Party? Timeshift (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Answer, especially with Abbott in charge, Confused.

I am not sure if Welshboy needs a ban, he was highly emotional and even hostile at times but he seems to be learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, so much energy expended over less than five words in the article. FWIW my opinion is here. tl;dr is that the Greens themselves are arguing over this issue, and you and Welshboyau should cover that argument in the article. You and I had similar blues back in the day, but I don't think we ever got to ANI. And from his infoboxes, he seems to have a lot more in common with you than with me :-) --Surturz (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

All i'm going to say is that things are not always what they appear to be :) Timeshift (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll just add my recurring thought that the real problem here is Infoboxes, which encourage (simple?) people to try to represent complex matters simplistically in just one or two words. Far too shallow a goal for this encyclopaedia while it aims to be a quality publication. It can never be accurate and meaningful. And, in that context, I would still argue that trying to place all the world's political parties somewhere on a simple (and simplistic!) linear continuum is just plain silly. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Timeshift (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To barge in a little, I think it's less a problem with infoboxes (what can I say, I love them), and more a problem with using left-right identifiers. I'd be quite happy to phase them out entirely, to be honest. (I do hope we don't end up having to resort to a topic ban, because Welshboy seems to be a potentially good contributor, and goodness knows we need more of them.) Frickeg (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that assessment, represented by the absence of substantial productive diffs. Timeshift (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic. I see someone who's enthusiastic and who doesn't really get that sometimes on Wikipedia you lose arguments, but that doesn't mean they can never reform. If he masters WP:CONSENSUS and especially WP:AGF, I think he might fit in fine. Frickeg (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that's not the case... let's leave it at that. Timeshift (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you were on the money. I hate it when hoping for the best leaves one disappointed. Frickeg (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're getting warmer. But you're not there yet. If you can connect the dots, well done, but i'm not going to restate it out of caution... :) Timeshift (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL, serves me right for doing arbitrary non-watchlist checks before my responses... he's been banned, sock. As I said when all of this first came along and I accused him of sockpuppetry with evidence, but got howled down due to non AGF. See, that's the thing. I revert vandalism constantly and can see troublemakers a mile away, I don't have the best faith, but having been around the wikiblock a few times, I just know it's not possible to stick rigidly to the rules. Sometimes, you have to keep as close to the rules as possible in order to draw out the truth from them. Sometimes, one just has to feel absolutely justified. /smug mode :) Timeshift (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And there was me, blithely thinking he was just an overenthusiastic newbie. Wasn't he the one who tried to have your userpage deleted last time? I'm glad this puts an end to all the drama, though; it was kind of getting out of hand. Frickeg (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I lose count of the socks who take exception to my userpage, I can't remember. You'll notice it's not often I engage like that with an editor who doesn't turn out to be something like this. I don't think it was ever getting out of hand as such, it was just a matter of time until he tripped up. Timeshift (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't the socks nuking your user page, but. Regardless of who another editor is, you should aim for civility. Especially if they have different opinions. Pete, perfect

And I remained civil. Can you give me a single admin's diff who claims i've been uncivil in this? As one admin said... "While I'm well aware that Timeshift9 has a strong style in pushing his points, I haven't actually seen him do anything wrong in this particular matter. If I did, I would address it with him, as I have in the past". :) Timeshift (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should do away with WP:SPI and just get everyone to watchlist your user page. :P Orderinchaos 00:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I should have twigged that this guy was Enidblyton11 earlier given their behavior. His conduct was consistent with a sockpuppet from day one (I thought it was suspicious when he went ballistic when Timeshift first suggested that he might be a sock, but there wasn't any evidence of who it was a sock off at this time). Nick-D (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes there was, one IP dropped from an edit war where another IP picked up on the same edit, with the former ceasing editing and the latter starting from nowhere. Then the latter became Welshboy11 which he said, but screamed he wasn't the former and didnt respond to that evidence. Too circumstantial. WP:QUACK. I'm the trufflepig of socks. :) Timeshift (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose a new username for you Timeshift; SockTrufflepig. Djapa Owen 00:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Socktruffleschwein? Timeshift (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Strumpftrüffelschwein vielleicht? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to email me if you think that you're onto a sockpuppet (especially this person) but don't want to post the evidence on-Wiki. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I did post it on-wiki at the time as I said above. Next time I will consider messaging you though, thanks. Timeshift (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the whole thing was done dishonestly, perhaps we should ask for all Enid/Welshpuppet's edits, complaints, merge requests etc. to be undone? Djapa Owen 00:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

No disagreement here. Timeshift (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

AN/I (2)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Timeshift. I deleted your user page as I believed it was being used improperly as what amounted to a personal blog. We have considerable latitude in what we put on our user space, but I believe you breached the limits here. No hard feelings. --John (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• And I have now restored your page pending discussion, and per Orderinchaos's request to me at my user talk. Answer me this; when your page had already been deleted once as a result of similar concerns in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, why would you want to recreate it and use it in the same way? --John (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. Response below. Timeshift (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Based on the discussion at [1], I have modified your user page. This is the least drastic solution available. It exceeds the policy WP:UP for personal use. I have done this so that you may still have access to the information in the history, but if the page goes back to being a soapbox, it will be either speedy deleted or set to MfD by myself or another admin, based on a clear consensus that it is excessive. I have tried to leave the Wikipedia related info boxes and other templates, which are less controversial. Please familiarize yourself with the policy on user pages before making any drastic changes. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have had this questioned multiple times over my years at wikipedia, and it's always been decided that some level is ok, but not excessive pages and pages. I admit that it may have grown a bit bushy of late, but considering the ammo given by the opposition, it's not exactly a hard thing to do. I've taken a chainsaw to it and introduced a minimalist version which is far less than the previous one that was given the all-clear in the last time it was brought up. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination) because of the continued disagreement surrounding whether the revised user page still violates violates WP:NOT and WP:UP. Cunard (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Must we go through this? Isn't the comments at here enough? Timeshift (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to backup the unimpeachable parts just in case the MfD goes against you (I hope it doesn't). -Rrius (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point, userpage.txt done. Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you also invest in a Twitter account to save yourself some drama (there's a userbox which can be used to link directly to such accounts) Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't do twitter, or blogs. Timeshift (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Check out the userpages of the 'Delete' voters. About half have political material on their UPs. Apparently, your mistake was not putting your political stuff inside userboxes :-) --Surturz (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, i've been through this before. Userpage.txt my friend... it will be there in one form or another :) Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sanity prevails. Timeshift (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Good to see. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank shizzle. That wasted way too much time and energy. Now we can stop stressing about Timeshift's back yard and get back to editing hey? Djapa Owen (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Some never stopped :P Timeshift (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's crazy. They black out the entire site in protest of SOPA and supporting free speech, but then turn around and MfD the mild political content on your UP. Glad to see the MfD failed. --Surturz (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Ramjan's story lacks credibility: if it really happened, why didn't she complain about it in her 1977 Honi Soit letter along with her other complaints about Abbott and his running mate? [2] --Surturz (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. "Questions on preferred PM and attitude to leaders are always lousy predictors of levels of vote." - Antony Green[3]

PPM/satisfaction isn't a predictor of the vote, where did I claim that? Anywho, the problem is that nobody is surprised whether it's true or not, and reinforces the fallacies and eventual failure of his style of opposition. And starting off with saying he doesn't recall doing it...? I mean seriously, this is nobody's problem except for one Tony Abbott. But if you really want to get me started on something, let's discuss Cory Bernardi shall we? Timeshift (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Userpage Stalker here... I reckon Bernardi has probably enhanced the cause of gay marriage considerably today. Rational people won't want to be on the same team as him. Will be interesting to watch though. HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And probably the first time in his life he has enhanced a good cause. Timeshift (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If Bernardi wants to reduce the incidence of gay sex, shouldn't he be voting in FAVOUR of gay marriage? (snicker :-) --Surturz (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The worst thing is that at one time or another they're discriminatory against every minority, but yet claim that they're not discriminatory. It is about time they change from the Liberals to the Conservatives. It really is sickening. Timeshift (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello from Anna

Hello there. We haven't met. Sorry to take a side in the user page thing. I'm very pro-Wikipedia, and so anything that draws keystrokes off the mainspace gets my attention. But, you are very, very productive, which makes you very valued in my eyes. So, no hard feelings I hope.

You mentioned this whole fiasco was started by socks. But, I see that Timotheus Canens and Cunard started it. Am I mistaken? Surely they are not socks.

Please do see The Hollowmen. I read what's on your userpage, and this is right up your alley. I think it's 10/10 on the funny scale.

I'm not even sure why you're so keen on politics anyway. It all just seems to be a huge performance by cheats and liars. It's gobsmacking to see people standing behind US Presidential candidates waving teeny flags saying "I love this guy. He's really going to help the people. Trust him." How can they not know what's really going on???? Are they daft???? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said that the MfD was started by a sock. Where did I say that? As for the second part, i'll answer it with one word: Medicare. There's a reason why he enjoys 80%+ support around the world. Go Obama!! Timeshift (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I keep seeing the word "sock" as initiator at the MfD. I have no idea where that came from.

Obama is a Wall Street stooge and assassin. Maybe he didn't start out that way, but that's what he is now. As for medicare, I am Canadian, and so, like the rest of the developed world, understand how essential it is. What boggles my mind is now the US citizenry somehow rejects it because it's socialist, while not even being able to define socialism, nor even spell it. I ask Americans: "How's laissez-faire capitalism working out for ya?" They can't answer. And freedom? That's preserving the right to the remote possibility of one day having a chain of shops with many workers who don't have freedom. Meanwhile, hi ho, hi ho, it's off to Walmart we go. Sorry, I ranteth. Obama isn't for the people. If he were, he'd advocate dismantling the government itself. Damn! You got me started. Don't reply!!! Go watch Hollowmen. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You blame Obama rather than the US media for not holding an internal 80% support rate...? Timeshift (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me started on Fox. The whole thing makes my blood boil. Now, where can one buy a valium the size of a salt lick? Reminder to self: This is not a world. It's an insane asylum. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

FOX - fair and balanced! LOL! I have Foxtel, and I every now and then observe it. I do find it hilarious. It's like Sky News on meth. Timeshift (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Do they still use that slogan? Oh, my. Scary times here on Earth. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Peace, love and mung beans to you both. @Anna: don't be picking on my wiki-friend Timeshift. @Timeshift: don't be picking on my wiki-friend Anna.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh, k. Timeshift (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Shirt58: Luv ya! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift9: Of course I have no hard feelings. This user page thing isn't the end of the world. It just encourages trolls to do the same, that's all. But, I think you're a good egg. A little wrapped up in the political show, though. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

First, Anna, the answer to your initial question is that the sock started the crusade against the user page at AN/I, not MfD. Had the sock not done so, the MfD would never have started.

Second, to all, it is neither Obama nor the press's fault that his favourability numbers are so low. Unlike the rest of the world, we actually have him as our president. I am a fairly lefty Democrat, and my feelings toward him are mixed at best. That doesn't mean I am even considering voting for Romney, but I do regret voting for him rather than Hilary Clinton.

He is mediocre at best at actually getting things done. The health care bill, for example, was badly bungled in choosing to go for universal coverage before/without making a serious attempt at reducing costs, in placing such a priority on the issue in the first year of the first term (when the rest of the country were far more concerned about the economy), in violating his pledge about creating an individual mandate to purchase insurance—about the only issue that separated him and Clinton in the primaries—and in letting Congress develop a bill through a process whereby five different committees created separate bills which were then stitched together into one bill for each house and finally one bill when he should have just presented Congress with a bill and set the terms of debate that way. Worse yet, he allowed Congress to take its summer recess before at the very least finishing that process of narrowing down the bills to one. That allowed Republicans to spend weeks attacking elements from all the versions (and making things up, like "death panels") and prevented Democrats explaining and defending the policy. Relatedly, and worst of all, the President failed utterly to control the debate. He didn't bother addressing the American people on the issue until the autumn, many months after the debate began. He allowed Congress to take the lead on selling the bill even though Congress is not equipped to so and was relatively unpopular.

The final point is about socialism. What you fail to understand is that fear of avowed socialists is etched into the very bones of Americans. We spent about a century fighting anarchists, socialists and communists, losing two presidents to assassination along the way. We were the country that everyone else in the free world counted on to stand up to the USSR, to be the main target of those thousands of missiles. To be the ones who had to make the decisions that would or would not lead to the world's destruction. I grew up in the 80's, long after the darkest days of the Cold War were over, yet even my generation grew up believing the Soviets might yet decide to kill us all. If we were lucky, we'd be walking home from school and *poof*, but living in the suburbs we might die slow miserable deaths like the chimps in Project X. It may be easy for most countries to it shake off, but the Cold War is as much a part of who we are as it is of the Russians and Warsaw Pact countries. Maybe that will fade with the passage of time. There are other parts of our history that lead Americans to suspicion of socialism and anything that smacks of it, but our last hundred years are what created the dread you have so much trouble understanding. -Rrius (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Sure they fear communism, but most of the US population think they've been intelligently designed. But they are sporting software that sees the world through Darwinian glasses. Conservatives like meritocracies. They just fail to see that it is the rich who create the poor.

All that stuff you say US was faced with, was actually created and perpetuated by the US. And while USSR was spreading communism, the US was spreading something far, far worse, and on a much larger scale. Communism and capitalism both suck, and end in tears. But socialism isn't the same.

This electoral process is all a diversion from the fact that other choices exist. A third party beats two. Consensus beats democracy. People think it's about government vs. crops. picking the rabble's labour surplus. Don't they know that the labour surplus should belong to them to allocate? That choice is never presented. They should take a look at Silicon Valley, the greatest example of Marxism ever. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No, most American's don't believe in intelligent design. As for conservatives liking meritocracies, that is certainly not unique to America. Are you seriously going to tell me that Stephen Harper doesn't have exactly the same blind spots?

Capitalism has its problems, but saying it sucks worse than communism goes too far in my opinion. In fact, I think it's bonkers. The sort of capitalism that the US tries to sell contains significant elements of socialism that, as a country, we turn a blind eye toward. In any event, of course socialism isn't the same, but that is beside the point. In America, socialism got bound up with communism, anarchism and any other then-contemporary leftist -ism you can think of before there was a Soviet Union.

Your final paragraph is barely intelligible, and I'd almost like to hear you defend Silicon Valley as a Marxist paradise, but this is probably not the right time for that can of worms. Your third party comment does, I think, touch on something vital. Americans are present with a binary choice in almost all elections that matter, and our Constitution is so unamendable that we just can't fix it. A good number of people want more options, but the system is so rigged against it that very few parties last more than a decade, and fewer still manage to get anyone elected. -Rrius (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"People think it's about government vs. crops. picking the rabble's labour surplus." Yep, not so intelligible. I meant: "People are led to think that the only choice is that either the government or the corporation will aquiring their labour surplus.

As for Silicon Valley, sure, a couple of people in a garage working for profits that they decide what to do with is pretty Marxian. And that's how it started, and was their intent. Compare that to working for Microsoft. Of course, these garage dwellers then get employees who work within their company and the whole corporate/fascist system emerges.

Bottom line is that when we work, we should own a piece of the organization, and decide what to do with the surplus.

Anyway, I must extricate myself from this discussion before I have a psychotic episode. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

For profits that they decide what to do with? Isn't it funny how going so far to the left or right almost winds up at the opposite end of the spectrum :) Timeshift (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a better idea that someone else deciding. Now, that's clearly icing on the cake. I will leave this matter, assured that all agree that Anna has reigned supreme, and you all see the point, and heed to her goddess-like wisdom. It's been a pleasure helping you see the light. I understand that you won't want to reply, and that I've had the last word. Surely, you are all too gobsmacked with my intelligence and insight to type anything right now. In advance: You're welcome. I'm glad I could help. I'm off now, to gleam with light, and immerse myself in some well-deserved smugness. Ha! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What an abrupt finish! Gee, it's not like you sniffed out a sock or anything. Just sayin' :) Timeshift (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's all good and well but it seems that any government help is slammed as socialist. How the republicans can spin neglect in to "economic freedom" is beyond me. Damn straight health care should be an entitlement! Over time it makes a country healthier with less health spending. Timeshift (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Republicans are aware of the latent fear of socialism and take advantage of it. That's politics. It sucks, but there it is. The problem isn't that Americans are stupid, as implied earlier, but that the left in this country sucks at putting its case forward. Basically, we've got Bill Clinton, a has-been, and that's it. President Obama bungled the health care debate. He allowed Congress to run it in a way that left them in a position at their summer break that they had five bills running through five different committees. That let the Republicans pick things to attack, distort, and straight-out lie about for weeks on end, while Democrats didn't actually have anything to defend. And instead of explaining to the American people what he was doing and why at the beginning of the process (around April 2009), he didn't say anything until the 9th of September (the famous "You lie!" address to Congress). Even then, his explanation was only so-so given the months of bashing at that point. He should have announced on national television that he was presenting Congress his own bill and explained to the people why he thought it was the right policy. He should really have addressed why he was doing it when everyone was still freaking out about the economy. And if he couldn't make a compelling argument on that, he should have put it on the back burner. And that's just the process; he fucked up the policy too. Most notably there is nothing about "bending the cost curve", and there is no evidence that forcing individuals to buy private insurance will cut costs instead of increasing them. We need something better, but I fear that if the current reforms end up being problematic, it will take us farther from the state solution we need.

Oh, and not all government help is slammed as socialism. Our entitlements for old people are beloved (conservatives literally say, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"), and somehow "corporate welfare" (I don't know if the term exists in Australia; I think I've heard the NDP attack it in Canada) never seems to come under the banner of socialist spending. -Rrius (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't even go down the consistency path. The repubs are supposedly all for world-best small government, yet they create some of the biggest governments in earth's history. Timeshift (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Australian politics podcast?

I currently listen to podcast versions of The House, a weekly radio show about Canadian politics (mostly federal, but also provincial), and The Westminster Hour, a weekly BBC Radio 4 show about British politics. Each show has interviews with experts and panels of MPs where two or three opposing politicians are interviewed together. Do you (or your talk page watchers) know of a similar program discussing Australian politics that runs about 45 mins to an hour on a weekly basis? -Rrius (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not that I know of... this is about as close as it gets. The Drum, Offsiders, Insiders etc. Timeshift (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the ABC and SBS online content like iView is geoblocked and so cannot be accessed from OS. Otherwise Q and A sounds closest to what you are talking about. The others TS has mentioned are good too. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... though i'm sure it would be possible to use a proxy to get detected as domestic. Timeshift (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What licence to use for AAD images

Hi Timeshift, I have been trying to organise a couple of pictures for the article on Shepherd’s beaked whale, and have found some on the Australian Antarctic Division website [here], and contacted them for permission to use these images which was immediately granted as per the email chain below. Do you know what licence I should then be using to upload these images? I don't know whether it would make sense to upload the video or simply link to it?

What do you think? Djapa Owen (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi XXXXXXXX, feel free to use the images and footage. Please credit Catriona Johnson/Australian Antarctic Division.

It has also been suggested that it may be worth running your text by David Donnelly, who has a paper in preparation detailing our two recent sitings (Jan and March 2012) plus an overview of information known to date:

David can be contacted at XXXXXXXX

Kind regards, Jessica

Jessica Fitzpatrick | Media Production Manager

Australian Antarctic Division

XXXXXXXXX

www.antarctica.gov.au

________________________________________

From: XXXXXXXX

Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012 1:17 AM

To: mmu_helpdesk

Subject: Shepherd’s beaked whale images for [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Wikipedia? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi,

I was looking at your copyright statement and trying to work out exactly

what it means in relation to non-profit use in Wikipedia. Would it be

possible to use your images and/or video of the Shepherd’s beaked whale

from the article at

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/cool-science/2012/whale-trackers-make-rare-sighting#prettyPhoto

for example in the relevent Wikipedia article at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd%27s_beaked_whale which has no

actual picture at all?

Cheers,

XXXXXXXXX.

___________________________________________________________________________

Australian Antarctic Division - Commonwealth of Australia

IMPORTANT: This transmission is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the

intended recipient, you are notified that use or dissemination of this communication is

strictly prohibited by Commonwealth law. If you have received this transmission in error,

please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephoning +61 3 6232 3209 and

DELETE the message.

Visit our web site at http://www.antarctica.gov.au/

___________________________________________________________________________

They have to release the rights to it, not simply give permission for non-profit, which most won't do. Wikipedia:Image use policy is the place to read. I don't put much stock in fair-use image rationales these days, they invariably get deleted. Timeshift (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't encourage you, but...

Whoops

Their PM was at the summit too. Another example of Abbott ignorance/hubris/cantankerousness. Timeshift (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

BPM vs 2PP

It was Antony Green that said Preferred Prime Minister (PPM) and so on are "always lousy predictors of levels of vote" - his point is that if you want to know how someone will vote, ask them how they will vote - not which leader they prefer. For example, most Labor/Green supporters I've met hugely prefer Turnbull over Abbott - but they'd never vote Liberal anyway, so it's a moot preference.

I'm surprised you like the pollytics article, given how much solace you take in Abbott's low PPM:

Before we go any further, it’s worth noting that the relationship between the net satisfaction of the leader of the opposition and the two party preferred vote of the opposition is completely non-existent over the long term.[4]

I'm not very impressed with that article in any case. All it says is that the estimate of preferred PM is a usable predictor of the estimate of two-party-preferred. Better to go straight to the 2PP poll I reckon. Its other conclusion is that the performance of the PM affects the popularity of the party - well, duh! :-)

PPM is a troll of a poll - its main purpose is to sow discord within the parliamentary parties.

--Surturz (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Unrelated - I think this episode of Counterpoint might interest you: [5] Socialism vs Environmentalism

Surturz, I think you are missing the point. It isn't about PPM, but net satisfaction. If you know that an increase in the PM's net satisfaction will translate into a smaller, but appreciable increase in the government's TPP, then it follows that a party with problematic TPP numbers should try to make the PM more palatable, either by selling him or her better or by changing leaders in a way that doesn't destroy the party or its image. The analysis also implies that oppositions don't have that indicator available to them, so they need to find other ways of evaluating whether their leader is an electoral asset or liability. -Rrius (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Hi Surtz! There you are! If you don't remember, I sort of agreed with you at the time. All I was saying on my userpage is that there are indeed links and correlations between TPP/BPM, even if they are dynamic - the graphs contained in the link clearly indicate that is the case. I like this graph... see that lonely little triangle at 50,-30? His most recent TPP/net sat reading. Let the great unhinging proceed! Is it just coincidence that no opposition leader in Australia's federal history with a disapproval of over 50 percent has ever gone on to win government? :) PS: big difference between freedom and modern right-wing "economic freedom". But there's little difference in the economic realities of the two major parties these days. Probably why Abbott's social conservatism is a bigger issue than it ever would have been in the past. Refreshing :) Timeshift (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What - no reply? Timeshift (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No reply indeed :D Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ACT poll... Labor 44.5%, Green 14.5%, Liberal 35.5% - an increase for the incumbent govt, anywhere between the status quo to a (whoa, second) majority ACT Labor government. So I suppose Surturz might possibly find it strange that on BPM, Katy Gallagher leads Zed Seselja two to one, 54% to 26%? :P

Anywho, what kind of name is that anyway? I'm not sure people want a chief minister who sounds more suited as some sort of power ranger character... Timeshift (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

hi mate Harishrawat11 (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. To what do I owe the pleasure? Timeshift (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Slipper

[6] Teh lulz! The sweet, sweet lulz! My favourite part was the confected moral outrage against misogyny while defending misogynist text messages --Surturz (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

LNP ;) Timeshift (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I particularly liked Abbott saying what terrible judgement it took to elect Slipper Speaker, when the LNP has been preselecting him for parliament for almost thirty years now. Frickeg (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And now Abbott wants Slipper's crossbench vote, LOL! Abbott says and does anything, he'd have introduced a carbon tax in 2010 if that meant being able to form government. All bluster. Anyone who supports his party has no moral compass. Timeshift (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My favourite part is that the man who has been the loudest in calling for Slipper to go has go to be the most disappointed he actually did because that cudgel is much less effective now he's gone. Worse yet for him, he probably won't get anything out of it because Gillard's speech is the thing people will actually remember about all this and it hits him where he's particularly vulnerable. Poor Tony. -Rrius (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

He'll go down as the most memorable Prime Minister Australia never had :) PS. For once, semi-decent article here. Timeshift (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And she's made it to Gawker now. By the way: "most memorable Prime Minister Australia never had". Care to make a small wager on that? (I mean the not being PM part, not the being memorable part.)--Shirt58 (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. In 50 years, people will remember that late 2009 was when Australian politics descended in to farce. Timeshift (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, I read it wrong. What makes you so sure that the current opposition leader will win the next election? What are your markers? Certainly not the polls, if that were the case, Howard would have been gone in 2001 (lets just forget 1998/49% 2PP :) Timeshift (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Secret Liberal bid to woo Craig Thomson's vote - not a tainted vote!!! The lulz keep on coming :) Timeshift (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What?! A government with a one seat majority that won't sack an MP who has committed fraud? Oh, sorry, it's a can-do-no-wrong morally-correct Liberal government. How foolish of me :) Timeshift (talk)

Health Services Union expenses affair: Updated

Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:220_of_Borg#Health_Services_Union_expenses_affair's talk page. Message added 23:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

  Unless I am mistaken, you tagged the page as {{outdated}} 11 days ago here. Just letting you know I have acted on the tag, and ensuring my updates are what you meant. - 220 of ^Borg 13:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Welcome, highly capable NEW user. I'll keep an eye on you... :) Timeshift (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Boy, it's tempting

I note your observation on Pete/Skyring at Talk:Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). I'm being a very good boy and avoiding commenting, despite massive temptation, as I promised after my recent discussions at AN/I.

I wonder if his non-constructive and bigoted editing will ever attract the attention it deserves from those here who can actually do something about it? HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it won't - he knows how to play his hand. Comment if you wish, just: ensure your comments remain free of expletives (they substract from, not add to your arguments, not to mention people who may share the same opinion may unfortunately think twice about commenting in such an atmosphere), see through what he writes, assess the situation, then you can hold your ground. If he changes something that you don't agree with, you can revert and comment for a consensus to be sought while the status quo remains. If his disputed change doesn't have legs, it will drop off the radar. If he's simply provoking and not changing anything, the best thing to do is ignore it. Others are there and observing too. If its disputed, a change away from the status quo, and requires consensus, even Pete cannot simply defeat the system - though he does try. Any given issue, without a constant back and forth, will take more than a day to resolve. But that's ok - it's usually how it works. Just keep your patience and stick to the rules in order to succeed. I thought it was harder than it sounds at first too, but these days i'm cool as a cucumber... usually :) Timeshift (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right. They are the (largely unwritten) rules here. And lying is OK too, so long as you do it politely. (Am I sounding cynical?) Unfortunately, my recent big drama with Pete started with what I still believe was an unacceptable repeated removal of text without discussion, and where nobody else seemed to be watching, where he even broke 3RR, but suffered no consequences. It gives me the shits. (Oooh, did I day that?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The rules are there and written. The problem with rules, like many things, it is very much open to interpretation. Yes, it's not in the spirit of the encyclopedia when Pete insists on his disputed change away from the status quo. If you're looking for someone else to do one of the reverts so that only Pete breaks 3RR, just let me or someone else know and obviously we'd consider our own view. Wikiproject australian politics talk and wikiproject australia noticeboard talk are also good places to request assistance. It is by far the best option if you don't see activity from others. The worst thing you can do is act before you think and say or do something you might regret, when a little extra time and other editors can more than help. And once you've requested help, resist the temptation to come back for a few hours and in all probability it will have already been solved, but without your time and energy. It's far easier, honestly. Don't let things give you the shits, and don't try to sneak a semi-swear... it doesn't help anything :P Timeshift (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mate, I'm sorry, but "gives me the shits" is an incredibly common expression where I work. It's not uncivil at all. It's part of normal, quite polite conversation. I'll just make the point again that what Wikipedia demands is a particularly middle class version of civility. I have the flexibility to (usually) adapt, but it's obvious that a lot of people I know could never contribute here due to the only language they know not being "nice" enough. That's a loss to Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But you're referring to Australian verbal sayings, not Australian English text on a screen, on Wikipedia with overseas editors (with admins who are potentially looking for a reason, any reason). Context and local sayings are often not conveyed when online. Do you think using 'shit' on this medium achieves anything? Does it detract from anything? The answer should be pretty commonsense. There's nothing to gain and potentially an account to lose, and it's not worth it over the use of swear words, regardless of it's use. Keep your powder dry, especially over something so trivial (i'm not having a go, i'm trying to help you...) Last but not least, it's not so much 'gives me the shits' in itself, it's that you've recently been swear capsing, so it can bring attention to you that otherwise wouldn't come your way. Timeshift (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to jump in, the best way of dealing with generally civil but problematic editors is to amass evidence and then start a RfC/U. ANI can't handle complex issues (or any issues at all on many days), and the format of a RfC/U works well in highlighting problematic patterns of conduct. I agree with Timeshift's comments on the need to be civil yourself (and the point about Australian language not going down well with editor from other regions is well worth noting - remember that a good admin and an editor in excellent standing lost the admin tools earlier this year for, in large part, calling another editor a "koala" when the Arbitration Committee somewhat mysteriously decided that that was a grave insult [the fact that the editor in question was swearing his head off didn't worry them so much - which will be guiding how I vote in the ArbCom election]). Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

... Koala? You're kidding. This place can be very weird sometimes. BTW HiLo, Pete is compiling an RFCU, which came about after Nick-D's advice here. I would not be surprised if there is a bit of beating to the punch going on. You're a long term editor who knows they've done wrong and have learnt, if you swallow your pride and just go with the flow, i'm sure it will come to nothing. Whatever happens, don't react and give fuel. Timeshift (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, after responding to what I realised was a five year old thread on the talk page which had since been added on to, and how much irrelevancy there was on there, i've archived it. I think we can all agree and appreciate that the article/talk will function better now. Timeshift (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That archiving was a good move Timeshift. Thanks. Don't worry guys, I'll be working hard to play the game. I ignored some nonsense he posted in a couple of threads this morning, and made comments of a more general nature relating to what others had said. I think it annoyed him more than if I had responded to him. As for an RfC/U, I really can't be bothered. I'm not the kind of person who compiles dossiers on other, nor do I enjoy reporting others. And I don't believe there is any hope of a reconciliation, especially while his goal is clearly to get rid of me, and I just cannot comprehend his thinking style. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted the above with an Edit conflict. I now see the post from Pete below. Good luck!] HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Quickest. ANI out of the blue. Ever. I think I might log off for a while. Timeshift (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And have you guys caught up with this one yet? We're famous! HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Tag-teaming?

As per your suggestion, I've raised the matter of the Alan Jones talk page blanking on ANI. Thanks! --Pete (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your work with Ddball and Collect is not tag teaming Pete? Interesting. As for the ANI, it is archiving, not deletion so you have already misrepresented the situation. Good start. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why i'm being accused of tag-teaming. If it's in reference to what I said to HiLo, if you read it properly, I said "just let me or someone else know and obviously we'd consider our own view". I'd appreciate a more civil and good faith attitude on my talk page please. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

ACT election

The discussion on the article's talk page is getting a bit off topic, so I'll post here instead. I suspect that the tone of the Liberals' comments last night reflected their much better than expected results (for which I think that they can thank the Canberra Times poll as it enabled a protest vote which probably explains some of the apparent flow from the Greens in 2008 to the Liberals yesterday). The small increase in the ALP's vote is a good result for the party considering the age of the government and the various stuff-ups which have dogged it since the last election. The Greens result reflects the protest vote moving elsewhere, as well as the laziness of the parliamentary party since 2008 (their entire attitude has been to try to take credit for Government programs rather than advocate anything new) and their amazingly low-key campaign. The Liberals should really be disappointed with the result - about six months ago they were in the box seat due to widespread dissatisfaction with the government (which had suffered a number of scandals), but they threw it away due to an overly simplistic and negative campaign - most Canberrans know the difference between an independent report and an actual government policy, and trying to confuse the two made the party look shifty. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep agree. Something that annoys me is that the little-known Patterson publishes a poll which appears wrong (can never be proven as a poll looks back, not current/forward) and suddenly everyone comes out saying it categorically voids any and all polls. I'd like to see Newspoll start to do Tas, ACT and NT... but i'm no doubt dreaming. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to read some serious nonsense on the ACT election, look no further than today's editorial in The Australian. Apparently the message from the swing to the ALP (which, according to Antony Green may now translate into an extra seat at the expense of the Greens; not too shabby for a 12 year old government) is that it should shift to the right and considerably change the way in which it governs. Sure. Tony Abbott is also talking total nonsense: "I think the people of Canberra don't want to see more Labor-Green coalition government" despite a clear majority voting for exactly that. Facepalm Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's like the 2010 federal election rubbish commentary and coverage all over again. Timeshift (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jones edit war

Could you please have a look at the current edit war going on on Alan Jones as Skyring and his crew are deleting material without consensus again. Is there anything we can do about this kind of behaviour? It is simply un-Wikipedian! (last to be read in voice of Pauline Hanson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Because his behaviour tends to bring out the worst in me, I've promised to not engage with Pete/Skyring. He really is playing his merry games again. Help please. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that talk page comment is a unconstructive waste of time and should not be there, was it the best things for you to remove it? Ie, given your history with a particular editor (and it's actually far from "history"). lol. Just saying. I didn't like it either, but didn't remove it. Anyway, see what happens - perhaps the two editors will be glad someone removed it for them??? --Merbabu (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly was glad it was removed. I should be above rising to his childish baiting, and so I re-deleted it when Skyring put it back. You were right HiLo, it had absolutely nothing to do with the article or anything that matters except someone's ego. I must make more effort to ignore his constant petty sniping. A logical discussion is so very much more useful. Djapa Owen (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Now Skyring has reinstated his original little pot v kettle comment and hatted my reply. Such manners. I am standing out of this one as this kind of nastiness serves no purpose. Djapa Owen (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, is there a RFCU on Skyring under development somewhere? If so, I'd like to add this. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Would WP:BOOMERANG apply? Of course, telling editors to F-off, etc, is certainly not on (and I didn’t look into why there wasn’t action against HiLo for that). But the polite incivility served with a snide smile is more insidious and usually has a far more toxic effect on collaboration. Unfortunately, a case against it is much harder to make, and its perpetrators know and use this to their advantage. --Merbabu (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, the actionable issues to be covered in a RFC/U are a) POV-motivated editing b) any examples of bad-faith behaviour (such as that I've posted above) c) repeatedly inserting irrelevant political statements into talk page discussions despite being asked to stop this and d) ignoring repeated requests and warnings (including the ANI thread a while ago in relation to his edits concerning Craig Thomson) that he cease these activities. The RFC/U would take time to develop, but its the weight of evidence which counts in cases such as this. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I'd add a good dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the list of infractions mentioned above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Guys, ignoring him NEVER makes him go away. I Wikilinked 100% clear policy when I deleted an off-topic irrelevant thread, and didn't mention any of the editors who had contributed to it. I won't do it again, but I appeal to you others to not let him get away with it. That's a big problem here. If he swore, the conservatives would be all over him, but because he hasn't sworn, you're letting him free? Please don't. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey all, I thought you should know I have put a message on Skyring's talk page about his poor conduct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skyring#Hostile_conduct_and_random_accusations. Djapa Owen (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Skyring has responded and then deleted the thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skyring&oldid=519853114 Djapa Owen (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As his is right per WP:TALK. For better or worse. I know I exercise that right from time to time. --Merbabu (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is, which is why I am not entering an edit war with him. I posted the above comment and permalink so those interested could see what I said and his response (I paraphrase: "LOL"). Djapa Owen (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia ideology

You need to stop the games.

I requested the unlock because the talk page broadly speaks against saying the party is liberal conservative or conservative liberal and because the edit is trivial because Wikipedia's policies say the "lead" should not contain anything not cited in the article.

Again, review the operator's comment on the article's talk page. Wilbury said, "I'd also advise a review of WP:LEAD; you shouldn't be calling the party centre-right or right-wing or anything else in the infobox and lead unless it's covered and sourced in the body". I also think I will report you for resuming this.

101.172.255.248 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.255.248 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, IP. Please read up more on how wikipedia operates, because one definite way it doesnt work, is forcing your view straight after a long-term article lock has been lifted. You are obliged to engage in talk and not start changing the article again. It is to be left as status quo until consensus can be saught. Thankyou. 20:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You are continuing being unhelpful. Again, read what people wrote. Read what the operator wrote; it is not my "view". 101.172.42.158 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia edit tussle

Can editors please comment on the article talk page and reinforce the fact to the IP(s) that the article has just come off a long-term edit lock, are incorrectly attempting to force their disputed view against the status quo, and are not engaging in article talk page discussion? It's getting pretty annoying. Timeshift (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Greenwich

Hi Timeshift9, you seemed to be slightly upset at the template. I do apologise, I thought i was doing the correct thing. I am not sure what your comment "get over the loss" I was attempting to help you build the page...I have no opinion on the subject what so ever? Lgbtoz (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up my typo of "the Hon." that was a mistake...In NSW MLC's are also The Hon. But i forgot Sydney was in the Leg Assembly now COuncil. Lgbtoz (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I was of the belief that the IP added the three templates. If I got that wrong, I apologise. Timeshift (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

| I dont think i did...If i did i apologise. The page does need more information. I have looked but can not find any. I still do not know what you meant by "get over the loss" ? I dont care if the templates are gone...Lgbtoz (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit by the anonymous IP address. It is not uncommon for IPs to come along and slap a bunch of tags on a page without leaving a talkpage comment just because they want to lessen the article's credibility. It was not directed at you. :) Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Green electoral vote

I see some weaknesses in the arguments raised. For example here in the NT the article suggests the Greens suffered as a result of the swing against Labor. I think this is simplistic. Most people here knew there was a fair chance of a regime change and so many who would have voted 1 green 2 labor chose to vote 1 labor so as to avoid splitting the vote. Also, this NT election had two new competitive parties (ASP and FNPP) and more independents than ever before. I think these two factors had a significant impact on the result. I don't know if the same holds true for ACT, but I think the first factor played a part in QLD. Djapa Owen (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've moved your contribution from my user page to my talk page. Every article's arguments have strengths and weaknesses - but the essence of the piece is far more correct than any of the rubbish carted out these days. I suppose when the biggest media outlet in Australia want to destroy the Greens at the ballot box, it is to be expected that the rumours of Green death have been greatly exaggerated :) Timeshift (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite correct too. My bad.

I agree the article is better than the ususal guff these days. Just offering a local perspective. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And local issues will always play some part. But one thing I just picked up from your comment - voting 1 Green 2 Labor doesn't split the vote in a preferential system, though some less politically educated voters may not realise that. Timeshift (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately many Australian people do not seem to understand the electoral system they operate under. What I meant was that they were avoiding a percieved split in the vote. Djapa Owen (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes... but they'll feign understanding when they cry out with indignation (ie 2010) over the supposed inequity of our system. Note to them: Preferences have only majority helped Labor since the Greens. Don't forget the Democrats, the DLP, others, and last but most un-least, the Country Party. Forget that it was the conservatives who brought it in on a federal level so the Country Party wouldn't split the conservative vote. Cake-and-eat-it-too'ers. I'll turn any opportunity in to a chance for a rant, won't I :P Timeshift (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Forde PM but not leader?

Hi Timeshift9, I'm a little bit confused. How was Frank Forde prime minister - yet not ALP leader? -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 04:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Forde was the acting Prime Minister. This is despite the fact there was never a caucus vote to elect him as Labor leader. When Curtin died, the next Labor caucus leadership vote was between Forde and Chifley, and Chifley won. The leadership went from Curtin to Chifley, the PMship went from Curtin to Forde to Chifley.[7] Timeshift (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah huh. Oh Australian politics... what of it? Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 06:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah huh. :) Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, Forde was an acting Prime Minister, not an Acting Prime Minister.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Have we got an old 'friend' back?

Have you noticed IP 124.179.72.52 has been rather active around Aus politics pages? Seems more conversant with issues and terminology like BLP than most noob IPs. No misbehaviour I am aware of though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Rarely do I not get the feeling with highly engaged editors that come from nowhere. Just monitor the contribs is my advice. Timeshift (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas
	Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy 2013! Surturz (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings :) Timeshift (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a very Festivus

	Have a very Festivus
	May your unadorned aluminium pole maintain a high strength-to-weight ratio, and your loved ones disappoint you less in the new year. Surturz (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Better? :-) --Surturz (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

My christmas tree looks far better than that :P Timeshift (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Poll Bludger

Hi Timeshift9, I've noticed that you have added a lot of links to www.pollbludger.com that now redirect to Crikey. An example is http://www.pollbludger.com/sa2006/hartley.htm. How can I find on Crikey the data/article that the link is citing? Philiashasspots (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. Tried archive.org...? Will you be re-adding deleted refs? Timeshift (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not archive.org, but tried searching Crikey and can't find them. I am not aware of any pollbludger refs I have deleted. I've just added {{deadlink}}. Philiashasspots (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can replace your deadlinks with archive urls, that would be appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll attempt to replace the dead links with archive.org links to the last archive version like {http://web.archive.org/web/20120410115450/http://www.pollbludger.com/sa2006/hartley.htm]. Cheers Philiashasspots (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your contributions. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Still plenty to go. Timeshift (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If there are "plenty", can you please at least tell me about at least 2 of the articles you are accusing me about. That would be more helpful. Philiashasspots (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look and from what I can tell they have been restored. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Philiashasspots (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Page for each SA Government

Moved here. Philiashasspots (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Two informal Adelaide Meetups - 27 Jan 2013

Adelaide Meetup Next: 15 November 2024 Last: 6 March 2020

FYI. (RSVP appreciated.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Would love to, but too far from Darwin Djapa Owen (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Grocon are trying to launch another attack on the unions.

I thought you may be interested to see what is happening with the Grocon article. I think they have another of their own people trying to change the history of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent user page edits

Craig who? :-)

Oh! MASTERCARD Craig!

--Surturz (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Backbencher comparing to party leader? Anywho, buying an icecream is one of his 150 charges. LOL! Oh well, it appears he has done wrong, and if so, he's paying for it. He's already an independent who will likely lose his seat at the next election. I suppose it's better than having half a dozen ministers resign during the first half of a first term of government. :) Timeshift (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, are we still all chanting 'election now'? Oh that's right, by now it would be a house-only election. Election now? :D Timeshift (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The CLP's slow train wreck

Have you been following the recent events here in the NT? [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have. Just another example of Liberal government :) Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Slow? It normally takes years for governments to implode in the way that the NT Government has managed in six months. The NT News' coverage of this is surprisingly good. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the NT. :) Timeshift (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Slow because everyone has expected the spill since before the election, it started weeks ago and still has not finished. And yes the coverage in the MT News has not been as empty as the name suggests. Djapa Owen (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Melbourne state 2012 by-election

I do not appreciate the flippant attitude you gave me at the said article as you misrepresented my intentions and do not contact me at all. --User talk:220.239.167.151

Fun fun fun

[9] --Surturz (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Teh lulz[10]. Can hardly breathe... --Surturz (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take the moral high ground in that 2007 was a combination of a PM on the way out and a highly popular opposition leader. The Libs only ever seem to get in on a wave of discontent rather than being positive and releasing policies. Shame Liberals, shame! I suspect Abbott will be like Sideshow Bob if/when he becomes PM :) Timeshift (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And the other difference is the media supported the government back in 2007. Today it goes something like...

B.T. Barlow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for you.....what if YOU came home one night to find your family tied up and gagged, with SOCKS in their mouths. They're screaming. You’re trying to get in but there's too much BLOOD on the knob!!!!!

Quimby: What is your question about?

B.T. Barlow: It's about the budget sir.

=D Timeshift (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You might be on to something there: "Because you need me, Springfield. Your guilty conscience may move you to vote Democratic, but deep down you long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!". Face it, you were happier hating Howard as PM than watching the dream die with Rudd/Gillard. Abbott will be exactly the conservative PM you'll love to hate. And you can dust off the molotovs and get back to effigy burning. Everyone needs hobbies  :-) --Surturz (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget thug! That's some nice waffle, you're quite the Bolt with those remarks! Let's come back down to Earth for a moment and remember that Howard was the highest-taxing government in Australian history. The dream didn't die at all, the policy settings are much better off now than they were five years ago. Same as Obama. Pity the same can't be said for the UK where the tories have dragged the country to the economic brink.

If we win, we win. If we lose, then it becomes your turn to lose and our turn to win. :P Timeshift (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Howard didn't lock up as many refugees, nor incarcerate so many children. Don't think the policy settings are right there. --Surturz (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. re: "thug". Marr and Ramjan's claims are fabricated. If the punch happened, why didn't she mention it in her 1977 letter to Honi Soit?

14 September 2012? We've moved on since that article. As for refugees, I believe you're referring to "asylum seekers". And Labor didn't cherry pick a boat from nowhere to leave adrift at sea to use as an example and lying about what happened in order to halt 40/60 2PP polls prior to the 2001 election. Timeshift (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If only we had more perspective on our news... Timeshift (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Again I ask, do you lament at the fact the Liberals never get to government on policy merit and effort? And interesting to see the Galaxy poll conducted 22-23 March showing no movement on two-party and a movement away from the Coalition on the primary. Abbott going too far with his negativity again? Timeshift (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the scars of 1993 run deep. Abbott was Hewson's press secretary I believe. The press and the electorate reward small target oppositions. --Surturz (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not that figleaf of an excuse again. Labor comes to government with policies, the Liberals don't. Releasing policies certainly didn't stop Labor winning government in 2007, or 1983, or 1972, or however far back you want to go. Just because the Lib leader couldn't explain his own policy, ie: birthday cake interview, doesn't give them carte blanche to go to every future election in opposition with no policies. If he can't explain his policies, that has nothing to do with being a small target, thats being too stupid to explain his own policies. You think otherwise? Timeshift (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you in an idealistic sense - I would love every election to be a contest of policies and ideas. However, it will be impractical and unwise for the current Opposition to announce costed policies this far out from the election. For a start, the budgetary information coming from the ALP govt just can't be trusted (surplus, anyone?). Secondly, it is the govt that has the whole public service available to develop their policies, and tear down the Oppn's. Finally, Gillard is the one making the campaign into a personal one ("misogynist Tony"). If the Coalition released detailed policies it would mean that the ALP would stop releasing their own policies and start a scare campaign on Opposition policies, just like 1993. See also [11]. ALP in opposition present similarly small targets - remember Rudd being called "Howard Lite" in 2007? --Surturz (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Costed policies this far out from an election, and the typical Liberal small target, no policy strategy, are worlds apart. The ALP has never done this. And to say that Gillard initiated personal politics is pure rubbish - the parliament turned toxic when Abbott's coup was successful by one vote, and only through vote splitting thanks to Hockey. Gillard was not leader then. But we're deviating away from the point arent we? Timeshift (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Liberals did release their election policies, you can read them right here. They just haven't released the costings. --Surturz (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Real solutions. Just like direct action? They're hardly policies, more motherhood statements. And based on how often they talk about it (or lack thereof), they can't be very proud of them now, can they? Timeshift (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No response? Thought as much :) Timeshift (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you said they didn't have policies, so I gave you a link. Then you said they're not really policies. I don't know how to respond to that except by saying "you are wrong". Reducing the size of the APS by attrition (page 17) is a policy. Getting rid of the carbon and mining taxes (page 18 and 19) are policies. Abbott's Parental leave scheme (page 20-21) is a particularly significant policy. Starting up four trial sites for indigenous employment (page 44) is a policy. etc. etc. etc. --Surturz (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... in one breath you say the Abbott Liberals are small-target due to Hewson, but in the next breath you defend Abbott's "policy" releases? You're doing a nice Abbott-like walking on two sides of one fence there! But if you want to call them policies rather than motherhood statements, then do so, but don't expect cynicism, especially with things like his parental leave policy. Doing things like getting rid of a carbon tax and implementing an ETS is what Labor is doing, the Liberals just need a way to do a 180 out of their trap of a situation. But the only reason the Liberals aren't more forward with their intentions is because when they come to government, particularly when they feel electorally secure, their concerns are cutting government services and worker rights. One thing I still don't get is how a government such as Howard manages to cut so much yet tax at record levels in a fast-paced global environment. Australia is the best country in the world thanks to groundbreaking Labor governments like Fraser, Curtin/Chifley, Whitlam, and Hawke/Keating. Pick a reason someone thinks Australia is the best country in the world, you'll most likely trace it to government, almost universally Labor. 40 years on, the US are still living in the past banging on about public-funded health care and education, and up to and over 100 years on, worker rights. Without a progressive party in government such as Labor, you as a conservative would have no reason to support the Liberals/Nationals. I mean, the United Party. I mean, the Nationalist Party. I mean, the Commonwealth Liberal Party. I mean... oh forget it, we all know the Australian conservatives are united by but one thing - an anti-Labor ideology. You've always got to have villains to have heroes. Timeshift (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, coming back to the current, four party leaders in Australia have had their leadership under threat in the first 3 months of 2013. THREE Liberal, one Labor. Which was the only one to survive? Not to mention, the survivor appears to be the first in history to be capable of surviving a federal hung parliament whereas the previous example, Menzies, was incapable :P Timeshift (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No reply? :) Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

lol :D (and look at Howard constantly flailing his head and limbs throughout... is it Keating ripping in to Howard's lack of economic credibility, or that Hewson is in his seat? ;) Timeshift (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, did you hear about Abbott's "director of policy" threaten a person and their budget with a knife? What a holiday of a job that would be! :P Timeshift (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

An interesting comment on the involvement of the Media in destabilisation and creating spills: [12] PM Julia Gillard: “Well, the first thing I would say is, don’t write crap, can’t be that hard.” National Press Club 18/07/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Why do I keep forgetting to sign my posts on this page so much more than any other page? Djapa Owen (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"The coalition has pledged $1.5 billion to buy and operate seven unmanned aircraft, if it wins the election"[13] - truly incredible how Abbott can come up with a price-tagged policy so quickly when it suits his political expediency. Timeshift (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Oh oh oh, anything to say about the G-G reappointment?? :) Timeshift (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

not ignoring you will reply properly later :) I'd like to see Noel Pearson as GG personally. Howard would be too political. --Surturz (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

See, even you agree Howard would be too political. How out of touch is Abbott? Timeshift (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Abbott? Who said Howard-for-GG was his idea? "The escalation in rhetoric has fuelled suspicions within the government that Mr Abbott wants to keep the position vacant so he can appoint his old boss and mentor John Howard to the role."[14] (emphasis mine) It's the government - the ALP - that's out of touch. But you knew that :-)

Back to small target - both sides announce unfunded spending, that's easy. Announcing the corresponding funding (cuts or new tax) is the hard bit, and what makes you a big target. An unfunded spending commitment is still a promise, a policy, however, not a motherhood statement as you claim. FWIW I agree the Libs are an anti-Labor party. It's a decentralised non-ideological party. If members of the Liberal party have different ideas and vote differently, it's a Tuesday. If two members of the ALP have different ideas, it's a leadership challenge. And ALP members ALWAYS vote the same, because dissent is crushed. Just look at the treatment of Rudd vs. the treatment of Turnbull. --Surturz (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. Did you see this? Do you at least give credit to Howard for gun control? It was all political downside for the Coalition at the time - I think it played a big part in the rise of One Nation.

"Speaking to reporters in Perth on Monday, Mr Abbott did not rule out appointing Mr Howard as governor-general"[15] seems quite out of touch to me, and certainly doesn't help when attempting to suggest it is a Labor concoction, does it? :) As for the Liberal Party, they are more at one than ever. I laugh every time I see Turnbull and Hunt wholeheartedly endorse "Real Action"! If they vote differently, it could be a Tuesday, but it wouldn't be any Tuesday and certainly top ranking news, just like Labor. As for the history of the ALP binding vote, it was historically necessary for Labour in order to emerge from third party crossbench status to majority government and the raft of reform that came with it. There is far more policy debate within the ALP than the Liberals. The ALP may vote as one but they certainly do not have internal debates as one. It does tend to allow for a more united front than the Libs, and as we know, disunity is death. As for gun control, yes. Every PM has to have done at least something right. Howard had one of these moments with gun control. I think you're overegging the pudding with the One Nation bit though. Whilst it certainly contributed, a lot of people liked Hanson's message at the time, and this was at a time where traditional conservatives saw a modern Liberal government and wanted to turn away from it in droves, and at a time where the Country/National Party in government stood for infinately less than ever. It was a perfect storm for One Nation. But somehow, Howard claimed a GST mandate with only 49 percent of the two-party vote in 1998, but on the other hand, somehow, Gillard's 2010 50.12 percent is illegitimate. Incredible, isn't it? Timeshift (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the Libs of old... but I do have my suspicions. One Liberal Premier supporting these doesn't change a thing in practical terms, and one is left wondering if the Libs are trying to convince Australians that the Liberals are still a broad church in the leadup to a federal election..? Deputy Premier of NSW Fred Nile continues to amuse in his attempts to control another party's state and federal leadership :P Timeshift (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, speaking of which, another magical sudden road to Damascus journey - Abbott on RU486! Yet again the tories play progressive catch-up, or at least, give the illusion. Timeshift (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

• File:Sturt1949.PNG
• File:Sturt1967.PNG

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

AfD nomination.

Another AfD nomination from the same anonymous IP as last time. Does it make sense to allow someone who will not even face up for their actions to waste all our time like this again? It took a huge amount of valuable editing time to reject IP's suggestion last time and it was rejected. I wonder if I can guess which banned sockpuppet is hiding their identity... Seriously is there no way we can block this harassment? Probably best if you do not say anything Timeshift9 as it would only be twisted against you in the coming circus. Djapa Owen (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What article...? Timeshift (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No article, your user page nominated for AfD by 50.113.65.228. They didn't even have the guts to do the nomination from their account. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Timeshift (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears common sense has prevailed and a swift deletion has been done on the nomination. I do not know who did that but it was a good move. Suurtz? Djapa Owen (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Closed. I wonder which sock the IP was? I suppose if you continue to do the right thing and stand up to vandals they will get upset. Djapa Owen (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

NAC SNOW KEEP was the MfD result. It doesn't get much more definitive than that. Very encouraging. --Surturz (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As always, it must have been one of my recent additions that pierced a Liberal supporter's heart to such an extent they felt the need for an MfD :) Timeshift (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Steven Marshall image source

Speaking of deletion however, a suspiciously sourced image is being used at Steven Marshall... if anyone wants to comment. Timeshift (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

In deed, that looks like an official LP campaign shot which would be copyright. Here are links to some more accurate photos:

http://media.sbs.com.au/news/thm/articlemain/aap_1705_1Feb_StevenMarshall_800x600.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSu2wSPvn2rc3hFXJG8w2G2HsmD5GmWCV1kub0mfNztB9Sn1lq

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/2876786-3x2-940x627.jpg

http://www.mhhub.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/8ce81_4447812-16x9-700x394.jpg

or on the lighter side, this bears his name:

http://www.justmugshots.com/img/1968314/lg/steven-clayton-marshall.jpg

Djapa Owen (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The source listed was just a link to the image itself (an internal link, mind). I deleted the link, blanking the source and putting it in the hidden category for sourceless files. If someone wants to do more, have fun. -Rrius (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just corrected the source for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steven_Marshall_220x250.jpg Why is it suspicious? Any copyright has been given up and this image is free for anyone to use, copy, modify and sell. Philiashasspots (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Source" means where you got it from, not a link to where to find it within Wikimedia projects. -Rrius (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, maybe the confusion came from me creating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steven_Marshall_220x250.jpg from resizing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steven_Marshall.jpg the high resolution version. The high-res photo was from Steven Marshall's electoral office. Philiashasspots (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure they have relinquished the copyright? That is an unusual thing for a party to do with an official image as it makes the image free to use in parody memes and the like. Is it not usual to provide evidence? Djapa Owen (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

As I thought. There appears no right to use the image on wikipedia. Evidence or deletion awaits. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about TimeShift9? Upon request I was given a photo to put on wikipedia - approved by the head office of the SA LP. Philiashasspots (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy. Evidence or deletion awaits. Timeshift (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:Image use policy the "source" of Steven Marshall's electorate office could be verified by contacting via http://www.stevenmarshall.com.au/index.php?option=com_chronocontact&Itemid=4 Maybe it would be more constructive for you to fix up your own Sturt image "source" before they get deleted.Philiashasspots (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in, but the burden of proof is on the uploader to show the necessary permissions. For English Wikipedia purposes, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Philiashasspots, you should have already gotten an email granting permissions—ideally while you were requesting the image. —C.Fred (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred. Yes I have an email chain from requesting the image for his wikipedia page. As I have already stated above the image was for putting into the public domain and is free for anyone to use, copy, modify and sell. I've contacted the person who provided me the photo again today and they again confirmed the image was for public domain use. If Timeshift9 emails me I could email it to him. Knowing the bias of TimeShift9 though, he would even claim the email was fraudulent. Would Timeshift9 like an Advertiser article announcing it or a press release from SA Lib Party? Philiashasspots (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Such acceptable images license examples can be found here (OTRS) and here (creative commons). These are examples of what are required for images of living persons. It removes the potential for fraudulence. I would suggest you concentrate on the image rather than me, it will not serve your cause. Timeshift (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So will it be evidence or deletion as the future of the image? Timeshift (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll contact the electoral office Monday morning and see if they can put it on their website and say something like Bob Brown's image confirming that it is free to use. Philiashasspots (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's a notice on their website, then I believe it cannot just be a notice that the image is free to use - it must be free of copyright and free to distribute or modify - ie: creative commons license, as exemplified here, specifically "Unless otherwise noted, all content featured on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License", with a link to the full license. If you can get the SA Libs to do that, then I would commend you for being able to convince an Australian major party for the first time to allow images to be freely used. Timeshift (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll only be asking for confirmation of creative commons license on the image that has already been released for Wikipedia, not all content on their website. I can't believe others have tried getting a politician image before and had rejections from electoral offices. The alternative is a blank spot on their page or a photo of them scratching their nose waiting for an elevator or something. It has already been confirmed to me verbally and in email, but I don't want to release that private email. Philiashasspots (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It must be proven that the image is released under a suitable license. Will await. Timeshift (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting. By the way Philiashasspots, can you confirm whether or not you have a WP:COI? Timeshift (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've posted over here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philiashasspots where someone put the file deletion tags. M H-S's image has been fixed and last I heard the Steven Marshall image was going to be fixed by emailing OTRS. I don't have any WP:COI. What made you ask that? Any specific allegations or suspicions? Philiashasspots (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Successfully gaining CC/OTRS photos from major party MPs is an alarm bell for me considering how unsuccessful it has been in the past. Why was your email so private anyway? Timeshift (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please point me to one example of it being unsuccessful in the past? I think the problem is no-one has asked. It was easy to get the Martin Hamilton-Smith photo once I informed them of the stupid photo with Duncan McFetridge growing out of his neck as the current photo. I was going to suggest you name me any Labor politician with a dud photo on wikipedia and challenge me to get an image for them but can't be bothered. The Steven Marshall photo was easy because there was NO photo and the Advertiser made fun of the fact the wikipedia article on the election did not have a photo of Steven Marshall. Why is your identity private? I don't want to be bullied by you to have to publicly out my identity just because you challenge the authenticity of my claim about these image licenses. I'm tiring on the animosity from you. Please email me. I won't out your identity. Philiashasspots (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any examples on hand but I welcome various editors who have tried in the past - contributors like Frickeg, i'm looking at you! Timeshift (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Aus fed'l election, 2013

Hey—what defines a long standing norm? does this goes beyond the history of the Australian federal election, 2013 page? I thought the couple of minor edits really clarified things in what was otherwise perhaps a misleading intro. I.e. describing Abbott as "a Liberal" is less specific and perhaps ambiguous, relative to "representing the LPA". The politics the party espouses are fairly traditional right-wing ideas: I can cite commentators, but the page doesn't feel like the place to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jish (talk • contribs) 11:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you think changing from "centre-right" to "right-wing" "really clarifies things". The former is a more specific term, so by definition your change makes things less clear. -Rrius (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree the Libs are more right-wing than ever. But we have centre-left for ALP and centre-right for Lib, if you wish to change it you will need to seek a consensus. Timeshift (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pre-election pendulum for the Victorian state election, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electoral district of Mulgrave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Australian Senate

In the Australian Senate, the president of the Senate does not have a casting vote.

Therefore, a 38-38 vote on a measure (including the president's deliberative vote), fails to pass that measure.

A vote of 39-37 is required to pass a measure, and 39 votes are required for a majority.

Please therefore unrevert your reversion on this topic. Tabletop

It should be noted that with Proportional Representation voting system system, and even numbers (6) retiring at each half senate election since 1985, it takes 57% (not 51%) of the vote to win a majority of seats in any state. This makes it difficult for any party to win control. (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

My revert was based on your ending of a sentence with ,. Timeshift (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

SA

May interest you. Just as long as you don't wear a blue tie while reading it. --Surturz (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Pfft, I check Antony's blog every day :P Timeshift (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June 2013 should settle the ALP leadership until at least 9:30pm. Teh lulz! --Surturz (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If Gillard wins, it won't settle anything. If Rudd wins, it's settled until at least the next election. I expect Rudd to win, and what's more, consign Abbott to the dustbin of history come September. You heard it here first! :P Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, if the ALP caucus haven't lynched KRudd before then. --Surturz (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And Rudd is PM again. Timeshift (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

LOLZ. Do you think the Greens will go for the jugular and campaign hard in safe Labor seats? --Surturz (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

LOLZ? Do I sense a hint of insecurity? The leadership is settled as the loser is leaving parliament in a couple of months... what's the point? If there's no more backstabbing then people won't care - look at Turnbull/Abbott. Oh, was it you a year or so ago that was sure we'd see the next election with Gillard/Abbott as leaders and there'd be no change? Roy Morgan 50-50, hah! The election is there for the taking! As for the Greens, don't they always? Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, they had no chance under Gillard, I agree with you there. They have a better chance under Rudd, but I think it could go the other way and switching to Rudd could make the drubbing even worse. NSW has seen this musical chairs before at the state level, I think that will swing away because of the change. Qld probably swing to ALP as a result because of the local factor. Other states, I don't know. Depends a lot on whether Rudd's return is seen as justice by the electorate. There is a lot of footage of senior ALP members publicly trash-talking about Rudd. ALP faces electors would recognise. Libs have already put out ads.

I guess the Greens do always target Labor seats. Normally I would say that minor parties will get decimated at this election, but Greens are a different beast to Democrats, DLP, etc. Greens are a true ideological party in their own right, not just a splinter off a main party. --Surturz (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If trash talking didn't damage Abbott when he took over from Turnbull, it won't damage Rudd. Speaking of trash talking, seen Abbott since then? He comes across as a man stuck in the past, still with little to no policy, against another man who's had a wrong righted, and this is what all you Liberals have feared. Did you honestly believe there's any swinging voters who wanted to vote Abbott in rather than Gillard out? How long until Turnbull challenges? Have you seen the polls yet? Both give a Labor majority of seats. What utterly terrible media reporting, but really, that's par for the course in this term of parliament. Bearing in mind swings aren't equal (but if we're having to say that then something's changed)... if you believe ReachTEL, on a state-by-state basis Labor comes out with a "slight majority" of seats. If you believe Roy Morgan which can easily be calculated[16][17][18], Labor loses 3 in NSW, 3 in Vic (borderline 4), gains 9 in QLD, 0 change in WA, SA, Tasmania. Most likely 1 gain in NT, but that's irrelevant, cause we can all do 3+4-9. So Mr Surtz... for the lulz? What did I say above at 7:26am 26/6/13? Yeah, go eat some humble pie. Game on. Timeshift (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and lulz. Gore? :D Timeshift (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, Turnbull inventing the Internet was clearly a joke - the video leaves no doubt. I guess the biggest win for you personally is that you can start talking about the polls again :-) It must have been a sad day for you when Abbott started leading Preferred PM. I'm waiting for newspoll - I don't think those instant polls in reaction to events are reliable at all (offtopic: do you read Mumble Blog on the Oz? [19] I think you'd like it - he's been predicting a Rudd win for months and months, and hates Abbott at least as much as you do. You can pretend to your hippie friends that you're doing something less embarrassing than reading the Oz... like browsing straight porn or something :-). Rudd definitely allows the hope of victory to the ALP - under Gillard there was none. On the other hand, the ALP must now pre-select a whole bunch of candidates due to Gillard supporters leaving (Combet just announced he won't contest the election!) and start campaigning in seats they'd written off - remember they have to WIN seats to stay in government. Contrast this with the Coalition who mostly finished their preselections last year and have been campaigning solidly in seats since the beginning of the year and earlier. Also look at seats like Chifley - the Lib candidate there has been doorknocking all year and now Ed Husic looks like he'll be made a Minister - which will take him away from campaigning. If Rudd has any sense he'll push the election back to Nov 30. Gives him another 2.5 months. I am fairly confident, however, that Rudd will self-combust by then. He hasn't changed much as far as I can see, intentionally turning up late to press conferences and saying crazy stuff for cheap headlines like his recent Konfrontasi comments. Combet leaving! Still can't get over that. He was willing to follow Gillard into defeat but not Rudd into your theoretical victory? Why? --Surturz (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how much swinging voters don't care about past gaffes and indiscretions - you need look no further than Abbott. Galaxy out and result slotted nicely between Roy Morgan and ReachTEL :D Regardless of whether or not Rudd "has changed", the fact parliament has concluded severely limits any ability for the Libs to find any new material. How many Libs thought we'd see this sort of seismic shift in the polls a week ago? Three polls all giving Labor a slight majority of seats. I really do hope the Libs maintain this new irrelevant look and keep banging on about the Rudd/Gillard history, because the country has moved on since. Timeshift (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Newspoll has Coalition down to 51% 2PP. So I guess that confirms the ReachTEL result. Game on, as you say. --Surturz (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So considering QLD, another slight Labor majority? Ooh, another Roy Morgan out, this time Labor 51-49 Coalition. Game on! Serves the Libs right for sitting on their hands by putting their faith in Abbott's do-nothing anti-Gillard approach. Any other leader would have realised you can't rely on circumstances - not our Abbott. Is this indicative of the approach Abbott would take if he became PM? Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

BludgerTrack - all polls combined to extract seat outcomes on a state-by-state basis (per what I said above). Labor 74 + Bandt + Wilkie, Coalition 73 + Katter (if we disregard the fact that Katter said he would support Rudd over Abbott). And that's ignoring Roy Morgan's Tasmania polling for statewide Labor retain! Regardless of the outcome, it now seems a near-certainty that the next Senate remains a Green balance of power. Come back Surtz! Timeshift (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And re Konfrontasi, Mark Kenny (and Laura Tingle) on Insiders last week put it best when he referred to it as a 'calculated' overreach. I actually heard what Rudd said in full unlike many. It's great to see Rudd's cut-through attack versus Abbott's deer-in-headlights approach... it's times like this that really reveal the low level of intelligence Abbott has. Timeshift (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Roy Morgan 54.5 percent federal Labor 2PP - ho hum. "If an election were held today, it would be a blood-slaughter for the Coalition!" :P Timeshift (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You must be elated to be able to talk about the polls again :-) I think there is a lot of anti-Gillard catharsis in the poll results. Rudd has had a good week or two too in the media, even the Oz is giving him a honeymoon (though they've been running some stories on pink batts). If Rudd does win it will be a sign that Oz elections really have turned "presidential". I don't know how you can assert that Abbott is of low intellect. He has an MA from Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. --Surturz (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You've already said that :P News Ltd have continued to do everything to put Rudd in a bad light, i'm not sure what you're reading. Let's be honest - Rudd's personal polling isn't spectacular, they're not even as high as Gillard's initial personal ratings. What's different? The polls have finally caught up with the reality of Abbott - 35% approval, 55% disapproval. Rudd got sacked for those ratings while Abbott's numbers were not anywhere near as bad. The vote has changed so much because now people have had nearly four years of Abbott in their faces and they too now know how much of a ****er he is.... now they know, and can vote for an alternative to Abbott. Anti-Gillard... anti-Abbott! Welcome to the present. As for Abbott's intellect, Rhodes scholar doesn't mean much - does it? When Abbott's on the back foot he simply cannot handle it. And as for presidential, fair shake of the sauce bottle! Which leader is it that keeps telling Australians they elect their leader and not the parliament? And which leader stands in front of his adorning crowds at rallies as if he were running for US president? C'mon Surtz, pull the other one. Did you enjoy the Newspoll Preferred PM 53-31 today? Turnbull must be licking his lips. Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A long overdue section break

Oh I am not asserting that the Libs' campaign is any less presidential. I think we both think that parliament should return to its responsible government roots. A bit hard for that when the ALP don't allow crossing the floor though. Gillard's authority was stillborn though when she failed to win a majority at 2010. Abbott's claims that she had lost legitimacy were devastating to her, though it is backfiring a bit now that Rudd has returned, since claiming that Gillard took the PMship illegitimately has the implication that Rudd is the legitimate PM. I think no matter who wins the election this year, Gillard's legislative legacy will be pulled apart. In this, Rudd will probably be more keen to destroy her legacy than Abbott. If Rudd wins, I betcha NDIS/DisabilityCare gets renamed pretty quickly. I don't think Turnbull will challenge. Lefties love him, but they wouldn't vote for him. --Surturz (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The ALP binding vote has always existed, and without it is possible that we wouldn't have been graced with the Fisher Labor 1910-13 government and everything that came with it. But that's another topic and so old that it has no relevance to presidential campaigns. Anywho... for the past 3 years we've seen Rudd and Turnbull preferred 2-to-1 in polls over Gillard and Abbott, Labor has eaten their humble pie, and if the Liberals have any brains they will do the same. It's funny listening to Abbott and how both Rudd and Gillard should have but shouldn't have been sacked. What does he actually believe? Climate change is real and the best way to tackle it is with a tax? Legacies can only be changed so much... Gillard successfully completed a term of hung parliament with six crossbenchers and passed more legislation than most governments could only dream of. Menzies, the last hung parliament, only made it half a term with two independents before giving the PMship to the Country Party before the entire thing fell in a heap. NDIS... who brought Medicare about? Though not technically correct, Gough Whitlam comes to mind. Let's move on from Gillard, she's retiring at the impending election, this is about Rudd and Abbott (and QLD and NSW) now :) As for Turnbull, don't think in such black and white terms. I know swinging voters who don't have particular patterns but say they would vote for Turnbull in a second. Same with Rudd. Wake up, this is 21st century. Timeshift (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The second batch of polling since Kevin Rudd’s leadership takeover has been even more encouraging for Labor than the first, pushing them into the lead on both the BludgerTrack two-party vote and seat projection - lol! "AMR Research has a national online poll of 1107 which turns the tables on the Liberals by showing Labor 51-49 ahead on the present arrangement, but 57-43 behind if Malcolm Turnbull were leader" - LOL! :D Just reinforces everything i've said above that you continue to deny ;) Considering that governments almost always govern with 2PP polling anywhere between 47 to 53 percent, it's interesting that Labor is doing so well. What could explain it? Perhaps, just perhaps, Abbott? Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo Surtz. No reply? Timeshift (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, Oz and UK tories... still attempting to make comparisons between labour movements and cigarette companies. Disgusting. Timeshift (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And wasn't it amusing when Abbott in the past week went from believing in climate change back to no climate change at all again. Abbott's simply terrible when his back's against the wall. Timeshift (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So Labor rises to 50-50 in Galaxy, and for the first time in a decade, comes from way behind, to 40-38, on the question of best party to handle asylum seekers. Ho hum Surtz? All anti-Gillard isn't it. Lol :) Timeshift (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Poor abandoned Timeshift... Surtz don't love him anymore ;( Timeshift (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Surturz would go gay for Timeshift

Heh. This election needs more lulz. Suppository was funny, but I want moar. --Surturz (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're back! You do still love me! The funniest moment of the campaign so far for me was on Q&A when Joe Hockey tried to claim Medicare as a Liberal creation. I couldn't stop laughing for a good 10 seconds on that one! Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't you tell me that The Hollowmen was so good?! I've only just discovered it. I think it would be fair to say that it is in the same league as The Games and could even be compared to Yes minister. --Surturz (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice diversion - just like when debating someone you tell them to shut up because you have no decent comeback :D Timeshift (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So when you've been accepting big tobacco donations for the past 3 years, and 2 weeks before an election you say you won't be taking any more big tobacco donations, how does that look? Will they be sending all the donations back? Is it an admission they should never have accepted them in the first place? C'mon Surtz, let's increase the quality of debate! Unless your side isn't good at that? (That was a rhetorical question :) Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And finally - how can the Libs increase spending, cut taxes, AND decrease debt? Hockeynomics magic pudding. Saul Eslake says a $30b black hole for the Libs. The debate in some ways was more entertaining in what Abbott didn't say. Timeshift (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pretty rich Rudd pressuring Abbott on costings when his government has never released a costing that proved within ten billion of the right number. Like I've said before, the shadow of 1993 runs long... Abbott was Hewson's press secretary. No way he'll be gulled into nominating big cuts or taxes before the election. I don't like it, I'd prefer fully costed policies from both sides, but that is the way the game is played. Abbott would be mad to do a Hewson. As for tobacco money - don't really have an opinion here. I will observe that the changes to campaign financing (very low reportable thresholds) have made it much harder to raise funds from members of the public and easier for big organisations to donate. Probably exactly as the ALP intended, since the ALP is funded by the unions. --Surturz (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't people have a right to know where Abbott will cut, as you've just admitted as much? Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

People have a right to vote as they wish. If the lack of costings affects their vote, so be it. Election promises are not binding, so to say that there is a requirement that certain promises must be made by candidates is illogical. It's a trade-off between an increase in chances of winning the election vs. having a mandate to make cuts after the election. The ALP opposed the GST even though Howard had a mandate to introduce it, so the benefit of having a mandate for unpopular decisions is arguable anyway. --Surturz (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So ronery... How are those opinion polls working for you? Mumble has backflipped on his prediction of a Rudd victory.[20] --Surturz (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Abbott Government

Of course people have a right to vote how they wish, but if you're not going to say what you'll cut before the election, what gives them a mandate to cut things they didn't say after the election? Can we already see Tony saying his commission of audit and the untold cuts that will go with it are part of his mandate? Of course. Let's announce an internet filtering policy and then immediately scrap it a few days before an election, what a bright idea! A distraction from talk of untold cuts? Sorry I haven't responded until now, i've had limited time. Looks like incumbent Murdoch will win another term! I'm proud of Labor's six years of legislative achievements, Australia is a much better society than six years ago, and more was done in the past six years than the eleven years prior. FYI I brought my senate.io ballot paper with me, voted both above and below the line, Hanson-Young first, Penny Wong second, Xenophon third, remaining Labor ticket, remaining Green ticket, palatable minors including Xeno's remaining ticket, unknowns, Palmer/Katter, Liberals sans Bernardi, nutjobs including Family First sans Day, then Day, then Bernardi last at 73 ;) Greens, Labor, Socialist, Palmer, Liberal, Family First in the lower (Adelaide). You? Kate Ellis looks set to retain for a fourth term :) I'd go straight for Ellis, but I wouldn't be able to get Garcia out of my head :D Timeshift (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) So the coalition did worse than expected, didn't even get to the 1996 result and went backwards in the Senate, and, they're going to have to negotiate with a larger and more varied crossbench than the previous government! "The danger as we go into the last hours of this campaign, is that people will dilly dally with independents and minor party candidates. Sure they might be fun, sure they might be different." I even Abbott would agree he made a mistake with that. Imagine what could have been possible under Turnbull. Timeshift (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The win may not have been as large as expected, but it is still a solid win, and bigger than Rudd's victory in 2007 I believe. The scale of it is hidden by the close election of 2010 - if the ALP had had a ten seat majority, then the Liberal win would have seemed larger, because more seats would have changed hands. Rudd's jubilation that the election was only a slaughter and not a massacre was bizarre.

Not sure why you like Penny Wong. She achieved nothing as Climate Change minister, achieved nothing as Finance Minister, and betrayed Gillard at the end. Her only competence is public speaking.

Funny story about my voting - I entered the booth as a scrutineer just to check everything was okay but noticed that the line was short, so decided to vote. Scrutineers aren't allowed to take party materials into the booth, so despite handing out how-to-votes all day I accidentally had to vote without one and make my own mind up about lower house preferences! (not that it made a difference, our candidate won so my preferences didn't matter). I voted above the line in the Senate. The Senate voting system is broken and needs change IMHO. 110 candidates in NSW, what a farce. I support Optional Preferential Voting. They should raise the bar on nominations, and allow above-the-line preferencing too. Also eliminate the undemocratic above-the-line preference tickets lodged with the AEC.

I think not having complete control of the Senate is actually a good thing. It allows bad legislation to be amended or quietly dropped.

The big story of the day I think is the further erosion of the two-party system. I believe it is the lack of respect that the Libs and ALP show each other nowadays that is causing that. The majors need to promote each other as worthy opponents, and stop all the hysterical personality politics. It just plays into the hands of the Greens, the (shudder) Palmer United Party, and their ilk. --Surturz (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You went backwards in the Senate both in votes and seats. In the house, you didn't even get to 1996 results let alone 1975. Spin how you want, doesn't change the facts :) I support only one change to the Senate system and it's all that is needed to ensure the current democratic processes sans group voting ticket manipulation - a 5% threshold. Timeshift (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Senate vote was much, much, worse for the ALP-Greens than it was for the Coalition. Coalition lost about 1% while the ALP-Greens combined lost 9%. I wonder if the Coalition even actually lost any votes in voter sentiment, considering that the LDP certainly picked up hundreds of thousands of Coalition votes due to confusion on the NSW ballot paper. The current Senate requires either the ALP or Greens to vote with the Coalition for legislation to be passed. The new Senate will have lots of different options for the Coalition to pass legislation (ALP, or Greens, or any 6 of the expected 8 minor party senators).

I'm not sure why you are trying to paint this is as a bad result for the Coalition. It's a solid win. It's not a record-breaking win, but it is a better win than the last two ALP victories. Abbott continues to confound the Left. If they don't start acknowledging his abilities soon, they'll be in Opposition for a long time. Pinning your hopes on the opponent falling over, instead of relying on your own strengths is not a viable long-term strategy.

OTOH the Greens have come of age in this election. All they had to do was survive: they did that and even kept Melbourne. I was wrong in predicting that they'd be destroyed in a similar manner to the Democrats after the latter voted for the GST. The vote is one thing, but the ongoing loss of new political activists to the Greens is the real existential threat to the ALP. --Surturz (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

of course labor went backward, they lost government. The coalition won, but went backwards in the senate. Big difference! Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have stolen your user box :-)

Apparently not having a user page was incriminating somehow.

Ooh, and i've stolen one of yours too :D Timeshift (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. Djapa Owen (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This [21] Such charisma. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, reminds me of the vacuum cleaner commercial here with the Rudd impersonator. These small business/entrepreneurial types just want to use their money in attempts to take the wind out of his sails ;) Timeshift (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

• File:Sturt1949.PNG
• File:Sturt1967.PNG

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prime Ministers Avenue may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• </ref> and it is said that Paul Keating was unhappy with his bust's weak chin and pointy nose.<ref>[http://probus.realviewdigital.com/?iid=63350&startpage=page0000024&xml=Probus_V1 Page 24, Boom Boom

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

... a useful bot!? Timeshift (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Whips

I have created a list of Liberal whips with an eye toward creating lists for each party. Please comment on the best way to incorporate it into the article space at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#List of Whips. -Rrius (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone surprised the wall punching tantrums were real?

"News Ltd has publicly apologised to a former student politician who was branded a serial liar by Liberal powerbroker Michael Kroger after she had accused Opposition Leader Tony Abbott of physically intimidating her." http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/news-ltd-apologises-to-barbara-ramjan-over-tony-abbott-punch-story-20130805-2r8si.html#ixzz2b4cQhCRu

‎Djapa84, the only ones who ever claimed it wasn't real were always in the Liberal brigade. What would you do if the guy you wanted to become PM did that? Nothing feasible to do but to deny it. Timeshift (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Seats in doubt

Please do not keep adding the seats in doubt. Discuss the issue on the talk page As to which seats these include, you might want to look at the ABC page. StAnselm (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

And this page is a list of "close seats" not "seats in doubt". StAnselm (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite Rob Mitchell being ahead by only 66 votes, he and Petrovich are both on 50.00% of the TPP. This, therefore, makes the seat in doubt as neither the incumbent nor the contestant are ahead. http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/mcew/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Extreme left-wing bias on userpage

Dear Timeshift9. I am an avid reader of Wikipedia and I recently noticed your Userpage with its extraordinary attacks on Rupert Murdoch and Tony Abbott. I cannot see how your political musings are related to Wikipedia and I am concerned that they bring the site into disrepute and bring into question the political neutrality of Wikipedia, especially when you edit many pages related to Australian politics. I have done some research and I think your user page is a breach of Wikipedia policies, so I would kindly ask you to take it down and cease editing pages relating to Australian politics

Thank you in advance

Mark (Conservativecat)Conservativecat (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Policies breached: WP:UP#GAMES

WP:UP#POLEMIC

WP:UP#PROMO

After 3 afd keeps over the years, youve officially got buckleys now :) Timeshift (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you must have a fan, to warrant WP:SPA attention[22]! :-) --Surturz (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Everyone, including you should play by the rules. Would you be happy if I filled by userpage with right-wing bile and conspiracy theories? Let's try and have some consistency here. Conservativecat (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea about the 'afd keeps' but the content of your userpage is in breach of the spirit and the letter of the rules. It's interesting you also resort to personal abuse against me, surely another breach of those tiresome Wikipedia policies? Conservativecat (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a well-trodden path, Shifty is not going to delete the content voluntarily. So take it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (4th nomination) if you want to take this further (instructions here). I would suggest, however, that if you don't like what Timeshift9 has on his userpage, don't read it. --Surturz (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have many fans surtz ;) Timeshift (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some protection racket here. 'Shifty' and 'I have many fans'. Why bother about any rules if you are not prepared to follow even the most basic ones? Conservativecat (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Shifty and Suturz working together in a protection racket, eh? ROTFLMAO! HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just let me know Timeshift9 - what gives you the right to stick up the middle finger to the rules and to political impartiality? Conservativecat (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact it's survived 3 deletion attempts? As i've said, you've officially got Buckleys now. It is my userpage. Go and do something more productive. Or continue to waste your time. Your choice. But thanks for dropping by and commenting like others have done, it just justifies how hard-hitting the truth on my userpage is :) Timeshift (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have to post it here? Just to upset people? How mature. It is irrelevant to the site and is in clear unavoidable breach of the spirit and letter of the rules. Why do you get to pick and choose which rules you wish to obey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservativecat (talk • contribs) 06:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying I upset you? Maybe the truth hurts? Three failed deletion attempts says it all. My userpage isn't going anywhere and you should get used to it. Timeshift (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And yes Surtz, funny how it's always the WP:SPAs that come after my userpage :) Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your arrogant attitude is disgusting. It shows the absolute contempt for which you hold this site in. Your comments are opinions and not facts. Most of all, they are against the rules of this site. Conservativecat (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Three failed deletion attempts says otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting approach you have to freedom of speech, simply deleting some of my comments here on your talkpage. Astounding. Conservativecat (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed your comment from an above section that went off of it's topic. I havent changed any of your comments in this section. But as it's my userpage, i'm free to clear my entire page of any traces of you if I wish to do so. It's extremely clear that you do not understand the difference between articles on wikipedia and userpages on wikipedia. Now as I said, go and find something productive to do. Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think I should lodge a formal complaint about the extreme right wing bias in Conservativecat's choice of user name? HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please try and be serious. Conservativecat (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Time to prune

Might be time to prune your userpage a bit before someone noms it for MfD again. --Surturz (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mum :) Timeshift (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

hehe I should have said "gee, that sure is a nice user page. Would be a real shame if something happens to it. A real shame..." --Surturz (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

/backs up userpage to txt file. That sounds like a threat! But you like my userpage (even though it contains everything you stand against!). Tell me, which bit was it that brought you over the line? Based on timing, i'd say Medicare. I'd be enraged if I were you too. Imagine the Labor field day if Abbott and Hockey talked about Medicare prior to the election the way they're talking about it now. Oh, that's right, it's a "conversation", at the moment. Timeshift (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Action concerning your User page

Dear Timeshift 9, I have politely attempted to resolve this issue with you. I have brought your attention to numerous policies prohibiting the way in which you are making use of your User page, which is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. They include WP:NOTOPINION, 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages - WP:SOAP, WP:UP#GAMES, WP:UP#PROMO and WP:UP#POLEMIC.

I have respectfully asked you to address this issue, using guidance which states 'The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable'. Sadly, you have adopted a highly arrogant approach and refused to address this issue.

Take a look at WP:MFD which notes 'Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines'. You are well aware of the guidelines, but for reasons unknown you have decided they do not apply to you.

Please think again about your behaviour and whether you would consider making changes to your user page.

Kind Regards,

Mark Conservativecat (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already addressed the issue. Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No you have not sadly. I was hoping you could specifically address the issues I have raised above. Conservativecat (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Conservativecat - I note that the ONLY edits you have made on Wikipedia are on THIS page, complaining about Timeshift's User page. With all due respect, that shows a ridiculous obsession on your part. Get a (Wikipedia) life. Go somewhere else. Find a real article to work on. You are no use at all to Wikipedia just whining here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. This is not about me, it is about clear and obvious breaches of Wikipedia policy which are being consistently ignored. Conservativecat (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything you've brought up has already been brought up in previous deletion attempts.[23][24][25] Stop thrashing a dead horse. Timeshift (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying Wikipedia editors are ignoring Wikipedia policies? Conservativecat (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You even have a box on your page saying 'This user opposes the policies and views of Tony Abbott.' You don't think it might be a conflict of interest for you to then be a prolific editor of pages related to Australian politics? Conservativecat (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Go read what WP:COI is. Timeshift (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I know. Conservativecat is Andrew Bolt's new ID here! About as rational. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I generally think it's pretty rational to try and resolve disputes by following the spirit and letter of long-established Wikipedia policies. Conservativecat (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

For someone who only registered today and who has only posted HERE(!), you seem to know an awful lot about "long-established Wikipedia policies". So whose sock-puppet are you? HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

HERE! *basks in glory* Timeshift (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I registered yesterday and as I am retired I have spent several hours reading up on the facts surrounding Wikipedia policies concerning this. Secondly, I am disgusted but unsurprised to have the attention turned away from Timeshift9 to more personal attacks on my integrity. Conservativecat (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If I hadn't read the policies I would be attacked and abused and now that I have I am still being attacked by you, HiLo48. Conservativecat (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I did wonder if Skyring/Pete would be the first of the circus to comment. Timeshift (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring would certainly be the right person to recognise an obsession. HiLo48 (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Timeshift - you may be interested in User talk:Conservativecat#Blocked. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

lawls Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

All ballots

On review, 3 polling stations of 9146 are still out. My apologies - Nbpolitico (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Polling stations counted and whether or not results are final are two different things. Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well deserved

click me. Click me now.	A series of gaydar-breaking pictures of Kate Ellis
	It is with great pleasure that I give you this award, in recognition of your fine work on Australian federal election, 2013 and other Australian-election-related articles Surturz (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ew. It's like a punishment rather than an award. I'll give you 24 hours to replace that image with something more... err... something less... stomach-churning :) Timeshift (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh and did you run this by Lib HQ first? Wouldn't want a 5-year party ban due to Abbott the tyrannical dictator :D Timeshift (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Better? --Surturz (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

lol! Did Lib HQ force you in to this in order not to be expelled from the party, or was this on your own volition? Timeshift (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Shhhh! They have eyes everywhere! --Surturz (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Tont Abbott has quietly repaid $609 in taxpayer-funded entitlements he claimed to attend the 2006 wedding of one-time colleague Peter Slipper, who is now facing charges for alleged expenses rorts. IIIIIIII-ronyyyyyyy! Timeshift (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

So the Left had both eyes shut when it came to Rudd's travel expenses of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but now they are all over a few hundred bucks by Coalition MPs? Give me a break. Slow news day stuff. --Surturz (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

But wait - isn't it all about the government and not the opposition? That's what Abbott kept telling us. Or does it only apply to Labor governments? Anywho - Rudd's international travel expenses as Foreign Minister and PM? So should we be counting Abbott's Indonesia trip and all of his other trips? I don't see why. We are referring to non-work travel. Speaking of which, how many cabinet ministers departed due to expenses during Howard's first term? Seven, count em seven. Dead-cat bounce lols. Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Howard is six years and five prime ministers ago... why are we talking about him? :-) I wonder who would actually go to Sophie Mirabella's wedding WITHOUT getting paid for it. I dunno if you've ever been to one of these "social occasions" with MPs, but I reckon they are actually working (though I agree most voters would not see it that way). Claiming travel expenses to community events is totally different to the things Peter Slipper and Craig Thomson (politician) are accused of. The expenses "rorts" currently being reported have been on the public record for years - the papers are only trotting them out because it's been a few slow news days. --Surturz (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Re Turnbull's comment that "The rules are a little bit ambiguous at times and it's not uncommon for people to pay expenses claims back", I loved this feedback from megpie71 (11:47 AM on 08/10/2013):

"If you have problems figuring out what does and doesn't fit under the heading of acceptable, there are lots of nice people at Centrelink who would be more than willing to help you out."

(Hang on, I used to be one of them - I spent a couple of years working for the Dept of Social Security - including six months in U&SB. Although that was almost 40 years ago and my skills may be a little rusty, but I'd be happy to help out!) Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

More slow news. What happens in opposition, stays in opposition :D Surtz, so I encapsulate all of that as you agreeing with Abbott that all that matters is the current government and not previous ones, or current oppositions. It will be a fascinating 3 years :) Timeshift (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Weddings? Iron man comp? Pollie pedal? They're right up there with Berlusconi's bunga-bunga parties, aren't they? </sarcasm>

I don't know what you're going on about "all that matters is the current government", but the ALP kinda drew a thick black line under themselves. --Surturz (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You're having to stoop so low as to compare the Australian PM to Berlusconi and his bunga-bunga parties and to Italian democracy more generally? Wow. There's a thick black line coming right up behind Labor. But as Abbott always said, it's about the government, not the opposition. A fascinating 3 years in store! Timeshift (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've said it before and i'll say it again. Just imagine what could have been possible without Abbott. Timeshift (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Leadersheep

Albo vs Bilbo, and they picked the Dumbo! http //youtu.be/GFELLK8htKM lol! --Surturz (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Abbott. Enough said! :D Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Longest slowest newsday in history

lol Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

At least that one has an allegation of some deception (unlike the weddings). But oh look: Ski trip in Canberra! --Surturz (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's about the government, not the opposition, remember! And why keep bringing up Dreyfus? Timeshift (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

First time I've brought up Dreyfus. What about Williamson?[26]. Lib travel rorts are very small beer to the what is going on in the ALP. --Surturz (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you directly. Just that Dreyfus remains the figleaf. And how many times do I have to say it's not about the opposition, it's all about the government! Put expenses in to Google News - all Liberal. A tricky transition for you it seems :) Timeshift (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So no reply? Nothing to talk about but the opposition? It's gonna be a tough 3 years for you :) Timeshift (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Nah not really. You seem more perky though. Go on - admit it - you're happier railing against a Coalition PM than having your heart broken by Rudd and his lot in government. --Surturz (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm perky because the Abbott government experiment is going just as expected. He sowed his seeds of defeat before he even got in to government. Will he still want to take politics off the front page when the media are beating his door down for answers? The last 6 years of Labor gave a lot more to Australia both in quality and quantity than the 11 years prior, and we're in a better position for it. Just look at the US government shutdown, is/was over a healthcare social policy that Labor did FOURTY years ago. Labor is the party that brings the big ticket items that future generations often take for granted. But YET again... let's stop going on about the opposition! You can't seem to grasp this concept from Dear Leader can you? As Abbott has always said, it's all about the government! Or is it perhaps what happens in opposition stay in opposition? Are you happy with your party getting to government not by anything to do with merit (or lack thereof)? When was the last time a new government was already doing worse in the polls than the fresh election result? Where is the honeymoon?? :) Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Attorney-General George Brandis have been referred to federal police by a Labor MP over their use of travel entitlements.[27] What were the Libs doing 2007-08? Oh thats right, holding up cans of preserved food lol! Timeshift (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Miranda state by-election, 2013... lord, can't you Libs get to several terms let alone one term before suffering double baseball bat swings? :) Timeshift (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh look

It was a slow news day. RE: Miranda, yep that was a bad result. Perfect storm of events there, council shenanigans, feds winning, local member leaving early, usual anti-govt by-election swing etc. --Surturz (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And therefore the result we all, obviously, expected?! Ha! Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you really starting already? Can't even give it some time? "A long-time Coalition staffer warns morale around Government ranks is "abysmal" and "resentment is festering". He predicts a bonanza for reporters because "the joint will leak like a sieve". A spokesperson for Mr Abbott denies there is widespread angst in Government ranks. He told AM "there's got to be a balance. It's about rewarding people who've performed well". "Government's not just a holiday - or just a reward for opposition. It's a huge responsibility," the spokesman said."[28] Timeshift (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Greg Hunt citing wikipedia for anti-climate change arguments, lol!! Timeshift (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If that's an insult, why are you here? :-) (I am, however, moderately surprised that he could find anti-climate change arguments on WP). --Surturz (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A minister of the crown should not be relying on wikipedia. Luckily I am not a minister of the crown. But if I was a minister using wikipedia (ugh) at least I wouldn't be such a noob as to cite wikipedia rather than the ref used. And if it isn't ref'd, don't use it. WP is a great project but I expect something a bit more authoritative and a bit less amateurish from our government :) Timeshift (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WA Senate count WP:OR

Section 11 of the Australian Constitution allows the Senate to sit "notwithstanding the failure of any State to provide for its representation in the Senate". I think it more likely that PUP will increase their vote if there is a fresh election, but say they don't get a Senator up, and then challenge absolutely everything to do with the new election (like they did with Fairfax)? Could be that WA won't elect Senators in time for the new term. The WA Premier could also instruct the WA Governor to issue writs for a new election the WA Senators (only) per section 12. Could be interesting constitutional times ahead (though I hope not). --Surturz (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this the instigator for advertisements for upper house candidates? How else will they make sure you have to live under a rock to not know about having to vote in a by-election of sorts? Hmm, I wonder how they did it during the days of half-senate only elections? Timeshift (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it will be interesting what the ads will look like. All bets are off in a fresh election IMO. The electorate could swing back to the majors, or decide they like Clive and swing to PUP. I doubt they'll swing to the govt but anything is possible. --Surturz (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. 3 LIB 2 ALP 1 GRN would be good, and fairest. I think you'll find after all this exposure that the micro-party vote, and the effect of their prefs of which PUP was also a benefactor on a 5% primary, will go down :) Timeshift (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sports Party elected on 0.2%. Ugh. At least the Greens got some justice with a seat on 10% of the WA vote (twice what PUP got). Let's go back to the polls and get what the public voted for, and what will serve progressive interests better. 3 LIB, 2 ALP, 1 GRN. Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No reply Surtz, whats up? Realised things are unlikely to go your way? :P Timeshift (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

WA new poll for Senate

It will be treated by the electorate like a by-election, which typically go against the government. I think I heard or read somewhere that it is likely that nominations will be re-opened. So, even more micro-parties. I don't think it's possible to predict with any certainty at all what the outcome will be, but my guess would be that PUP will be the main beneficiaries, since Palmer has been slagging off the AEC for months and now he appears to be proven right. ALP might cop some stick over the fact that they controversially re-appointed Killestyn[29] and Killestyn has monumentally failed in his duty. --Surturz (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course nominations will be re-opened. I don't think the electorate will care about the electoral commissioner, not the least of which there's barely any substance to the 'controversy' claim. You're sounding a bit Palmerish there, let's try to avoid slagging the AEC hey? I think Palmer has reduced his vote rather than increased it. Not to mention every commentator says the electorate will swing back to the majors. What else could one expect when a party gets to a 14.3 percent Senate quota from a 0.2% primary that came 21st of 28 groups? Surely we can both agree that based on the election result or any near incarnation of it (LIB 39%, ALP 27%, GRN 10%), the only fair result is 3 LIB, 2 ALP, 1 GRN. But that would be most unhelpful for the govt, wouldn't it? :) The Coalition want the fresh election to occur ASAP for obvious reasons, but there's no way it'll happen until well in to next year :) Timeshift (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how you get 3 LIB, 2 ALP, 1 GRN. That gives the last two seats to ALP & GRN when both the original and recount results only give one seat to ALP/GRN. PUP + LDP get about 8.4% and GRN only got 9.49% not 10%. But in my opinion the only realistic outcome is a new election since both the original count and the recount are tainted. The AEC commissioner has demonstrated profound incompetence. First he said that there was no need for a recount[30]; then there was a need for a recount[31]; then the recount is botched[32]; then he announces a different result based on the botched recount[33]; then he says the new results is subject to a "nagging and almost irreconcilable doubt"[34]! This snafu will likely cost the taxpayer over $10m. Did you know that candidates will receive electoral funding for both the botched poll and the new poll? Total, utter, debacle. --Surturz (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The commissioner is only following procedures. Preference flows can only flow so far before it becomes distorted. Just because a voter doesn't vote for a major, doesn't mean they all support a particular minor. Sure it's legal but not moral. If you support a party getting elected on 0.2% then good for you. I'm referring to morality... the only fair result is 3 LIB 2 ALP 1 GRN who got 39%, 27%, and 10%. But that wouldn't suit you, would it? I suppose not, not for a party whose supporters vote 99.9% above the line. Timeshift (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I forgot that NAT got 5%. NAT+PUP+LDP all hate the Greens and in total got 13%, which is much more than the Green's 9% (NOT 10% as you claim. 9.49 does not round up to 10!).

You only account for 39% + 27% + 9% = 75% of the vote. Including the right-wingers it goes up to 88%. I don't think that's enough to call the last two seats accurately. FWIW I support a new ballot, which almost certainly will yield a worse result for the Coalition than even your call. I predict the outcome of a new ballot will be 2 LIB, 1 PUP, 2 ALP, 1 GRN or Microparty. At some point democracy is more important than partisan politics, and I think that this is one of those times. --Surturz (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"NAT+PUP+LDP all hate the Greens and in total got 13%" HAHAHA oh these arythmatic gymnastics you perform are quite entertaining! Is your name Glenn Druery the preference whisperer? I wonder what other jigsaw puzzles we could do with Senate results in other states! Preferences shouldn't 100% make up for the fact a single grouping got more votes. How you could justify denying representation to the 9.49% who voted Green (one in 10 voters) but endorse PUP on 5% or Sports on 0.2% is beyond me, but I suppose that's the partisanship within you. The revote should proceed and if it's anything like the previous result, 3 LIB 2 ALP 1 GRN is best. Timeshift (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, a point in your favour is that historically that has been the outcome in elections since 1990 [35]. Perhaps I just understand proportional preferential voting, and basic addition, better than you :-) Droop quota for six seats is 14.3%, the GRN primary vote of 9.49% is well shy of that. --Surturz (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already said i'm arguing the morality not the legality of it. Obviously you support an outcome where someone can get elected on 0.2% coming 21st of 28 groups because they've learnt how to engineer and manipulate the system. Timeshift (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what reaction you are trying to troll out of me but I think the current system needs change. ALP + PUP at least had some credibility as a result. Sports getting in on less than 1% primary is a joke. I agree the system needs to change, I prefer the NSW legislative council method. --Surturz (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair that gaming the system with Druery helped PUP to potentially gain a seat with 5% but leave a party on 9.49% without a seat. Obviously you disagree. Timeshift (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Electoral droop

Did Druery help PUP? I hadn't heard that. I certainly want to see group ticket voting abolished. That said, I am not sure that GRN necessarily should get the last seat over PUP. The Droop quota is 14.3%. ALP+GRN together got 36.07%, so they are short by 6.83% of the vote to get a third seat (for GRN). Go look at [36] and tell me where that extra 6.83% comes from. --Surturz (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Druery helped non-left micro-parties including PUP and he was behind Muir joining PUP.[37][38][39] Not to mention, Druery is now being directly courted by PUP.[40] I know how droop quota works, it gave Sports a seat on 0.2% and Motoring on 0.5%. What i'm saying is that it's not working for representative and proportional democracy in practice. I look at the WA Senate result of LIB 39.2%, ALP 26.6%, GRN 9.5%, and two dozen parties on 5% or less, and to a non-familiar observer they could only see one fair result - 3 LIB, 2 ALP, 1 GRN. I look at the SA Senate result of LIB 27.5%, Xenophon 24.9%, ALP 22.7%, GRN 7.1%, FFP 3.8% where Xenophon and ALP get the same number of seats as GRN and FFP and feel sick to the stomach. As part of Senate reform I think we need to increase the number of MPs (which would also expand the HoR) but that would go down like a lead balloon with the public. Six Senators per state per election has become outdated with the rise of non-major parties. ATL voting needs change with OPV, and I also support a threshold. If you want to defend a broken system by explaining droop quotas, that's up to you. Timeshift (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not defending the current Senate electoral system, I agree it should change. But what you are saying is that the Greens deserve a seat because they got 1-in-10 votes. All I am saying is that with six senate seats up for grabs, 1-in-10 is not enough, they need to get 1-in-7.

IMO the Senate is slowly becoming broken, look at Bob Carr's seat which will be given to a former HoR member that was kicked out of her electorate. I can understand the intention behind the rules for filling in casual vacancies, but parties are using those rules to turn Senate positions into commodities gifted through party patronage.[41] I don't have any particular opinion about the number of Senators, my understanding is that it needs to be half of the number of HoR members. --Surturz (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Mathematically you are correct. But what i'm saying is that being so close to a full quota just on primary votes, like more than 10% in Victoria in 2007, it's very disappointing and disproportionate when we've seen repeated successes around minor right parties who can't anywhere near coalesce behind the same grouping and get a very low primary vote - Fielding, Madigan, Day, Muir, Dropkick as examples. I know, let's level the playing field and create a swag of micro leftist party entities to boost the Green vote! Patronage? Joyce? Sinodinos? Come now, both sides do it and it's not a new thing. And yes I already said HoR would need to increase... "which would also expand the HoR". Timeshift (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

At least Senate reform would make the 99.9% of Liberal voters who vote ATL be forced to actually think for themselves for once :) Timeshift (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It used to be that the Left tried to raise up the poor and uneducated. Now you hate them. Very sad.

I think there were 110 candidates in NSW. Anyone voting below the line had to be donkey-voting to some extent. I've forgotten the exact Antony Green quote, but elections should be about picking from a list of people you know. --Surturz (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Who mentioned poor and uneducated? Are you saying Liberal ATL voters who don't think for themselves are somehow poor and uneducated? Timeshift (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That was your implication. I don't think ATL or BTL voting says anything about the intellectual calibre of the voter. I think the high BTL vote for the Greens just shows that there is a large protest vote component to Greens support (otherwise the voter would trust the Greens to apportion their preferences). IMO the main motivation of BTL voting is to ensure someone is placed last. --Surturz (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all - Labor has far more BTL votes than the Libs, who are practically non-existant when it comes to BTL. Liberal voters being forced to think for themselves by having to vote in the Senate with more than just a '1' has nothing to do with the "poor and uneducated". Timeshift (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The gypper becomes the gypped lol Timeshift (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC) So when do you think we can expect the 2PP? My bet is today, but failing that, Friday. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No idea, haven't been watching the AEC VTR lately. --Surturz (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well lo and behold, finally with their backs against the wall, the Libs have put a figure to their claims of electricity bill reduction - 9%. Non-core? And so it begins :) Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So here we are, parliament opens, still don't know the two-party vote, and the opposition already has a laundry list of questions thanks to an incompetent and non-transparent government. It will be very different to holding up cans of food for the first year of opposition! :D Timeshift (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Surtz giving up yet?

So Brendan Nelson started with Newspoll Better PM ratings of 14%, 11%, 9%, 7%, 10%, 9%, 10%, 9%. Bill Shorten has started with 28% and 30%. A stark contrast and a credit to the statement that the Libs can resist kicking and screaming all they want, one way or another they too will need to give their rank-and-file members a vote in the parliamentary party leadership. Let's not even go to 2PP. Or should we? Newspoll Labor 2PP after 2007, 58%, 57%, 63%(!), 59%, 59%, 61%, 57%, 57%, 57%, 59%. A stark contrast to the current dead-cat bounce of 56% and 53%. The opposition already has a laundry list of questions thanks to an incompetent and non-transparent government. It will be very different to holding up cans of food for the first year of opposition! :D Timeshift (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Name your wager. I predict: 1. Shorten won't last as leader until the election 2. Coalition will increase their majority at the next election 3. Immigration detention population drastically reduced and Manus mothballed by the election. --Surturz (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Way to dodge with a non-answer! Let's get back to the issue, the start of the new govt. And here we are, the first day of actual questions, the day after the speaker was sworn in and insisted that all members be referred to by their official title (opposition leader, member for x, madam speaker etc). And what do we get? 'Electricity bill', the speaker rules there's no issue with it (!), Labor questions the speaker's instructions about how to be referred to, and Pyne moves twice that the member no longer be heard(!!), and the speaker doesn't care(!!!). So much for lifting standards. Lip service. The division counts were telling, only 87 in favour with 58 against... on the assumption every Labor MP voted, that's at least 3 crossbenchers too :D Timeshift (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Spare me the faux outrage. Calling Bishop "Dolores Umbrage" is okay, but calling Shorten "Electricity Bill" is not? --Surturz (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I keep telling you this but you keep forgetting or ignoring. It's all about the government, not the opposition, remember? Oh that's right, same basket as the new govt supporting more oppn/crossbench talking time, good in oppn, not govt. Bishop and the govt should be holding all to account - not just the govt, not just the oppn, both. But on both she's not following through. Water-tight :) Timeshift (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And it appears Surtz has given up :) Timeshift (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I am just a bit perplexed by you claiming I'm off-topic all the time because I dare mention the Opposition. I thought Bishop's address to the House on being elected Speaker was quite good. In terms of argument you'd be better talking about whether Bishop is really going to turn up to parliamentary party meetings while she is speaker, rather than trivial points of order about nicknames. You know (or perhaps you don't) - discussing matters with a bit of substance :-) --Surturz (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Constantly using the opposition to justify government actions? Indeed! Bishop's address was good but it's a pity it was only lip-service to what was about to follow with use of nicknames. Abbott appeared to concede as much when he initiated a private chat with Shorten[42] which happened behind the speakers chair, I saw it and wondered at the time myself. Bishop said she'd turn up to party meetings but not tactical meetings. At least she was up-front about that unlike most of the incompetent and non-transparent actions of this new government. Timeshift (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Insiders this morning from talking pictures to you makin us all feel very excited about being here... oh the lulz!! :D Timeshift (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Bill Shorten has made the strongest debut of any opposition leader since Kevin Rudd, propelling Labor into the lead against a government weighed down by its secretive asylum seeker response (50% disapprove) and an unconvincing commitment to action on global warming (12% Direct Action). The first Fairfax-Nielsen poll since the election on September 7 has charted a rapid recovery for the ALP, with the opposition shooting to a 52 to 48 per cent lead over the government, according to the preferences of respondents. This is the quickest poll lead achieved by any federal opposition after losing an election.[43] BAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!1 Less than 3 months?! 2013 2PP still being counted!! The last govt led the 2PP for 2.5 years! What a comparison to 63-37 2PPs and Mr 7%s! :D So will we see consistency from News Ltd/The Oz with something like "if an election were held today, Labor on a 52% 2PP would be swept to government on a 24-seat 5.5% swing, crushing a one-term Liberal government"? HA! I love how an Indonesian updated Next Australian federal election with the poll ;D Perhaps he was the mysterious Indonesian that Mark Textor didn't refer to? ;D Timeshift (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Which 11 seats are outstanding?

Hi. Not sure I understand this edit summary. Which 11 seats are not yet final? How could Parliament be sitting if seats have not yet been finalised? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

11 of 150 HoR seats (Batman, Denison, Durack, Fairfax, Indi, Kennedy, Mallee, Melbourne, O'Connor, New England and Wills) returned non-classic results and the 2PP is yet to be counted, as per the note at Australian federal election, 2013#House of Representatives. A joke, I know. Timeshift (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this taking about ten times as long as usual? Every day I check the AEC expecting it to be done. I get that the Senate was a priority, but that was sorted weeks ago and there still isn't a full preference distribution for any lower house seat. Frickeg (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, here we are almost 3 months later and still no 2PP. I wonder how much of it was to do with Fairfax, and if they don't start non-classic 2PP/nationwide 2PP until all seats are finalised? I noticed this several days ago, according to the AEC, non-classics should have been done mid to late last week. So any time now hopefully. I'd be checking https://twitter.com/AusElectoralCom for updates rather than vtr.aec.gov.au as they either post at the same time or sometimes even sooner than vtr. Timeshift (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Timeshift. Can you explain what this "classic" terminology is about? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Classic simply means an ALP v Coalition result. Non-classic have differing two-party and two-candidate preferred results due to a non-ALP/Coalition candidate coming first or second after prefs are distributed. See here, Non-classic Divisions. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Has this term been around long? This is the first time I've ever encountered it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsure how long the term "non-classic" has been around for to describe differing 2pp/2tcp seats, but here's 2010. Whatever the name though, the concept/process has been around for decades. Timeshift (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Check. Tks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

My memory is that the AEC used to use the term "maverick" for these seats (I think it was 2007), but that seems to have dropped out of use. Frickeg (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes they did use the term 'maverick sets' now that you say it! Timeshift (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

2pp not for another 2 weeks now?!

From Peter Brent/Mumble The Australian on 16/11/13... "Grapevine sez 2 more weeks til AEC publishes the 11 absent 2pps and preference flows for all 150..". GOTTA BE KIDDING! More than 3 months, a quarter of a year, after the election? In 2010 it took a month. Longest. 2PP. ever. Not just that, why the 2-week change in 2PP ETA? More lost ballot papers we're yet to be told of...? /conspiracy Timeshift (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

3.61% swing

Wow, that's right, it is 3.61—it said 3.69 for a whole week, I should have checked against last election I suppose—are these final, final, final results, AEC? --Canley (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That WA swing? It's weird isn't it... when I saw you had edited it, I thought I had made a manual error, copied the 2PP table from another state and forgotten to change the swing figure or something, but there is no other state with that figure. Then I found an Excel file into which I had directly imported the AEC data, and that had the WA swing as "2.34". And just to prove it's not me, AustralianPolitics.com published the AEC state summary table on 28 November when the 2PP figures were released (and well before I posted the results like on Wikipedia so they didn't get it from here), and that has a "2.34" swing (note they also give the national swing as 3.69, however they had "3.61" in the headline until I "corrected" them, and they updated to 3.69, I have made another comment that it is now 3.61). So given the timing of my extract and post, I'm 99% sure the AEC had the 2.34 WA figure on their "final" results site until they "corrected" it along with the national swing in the last day or two. Of course the AEC page says it was last updated on 4 November so who can tell! (PS, nobody tell Clive!) --Canley (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

lol Timeshift (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Indon blowup

Need some AUSPOL new blood around here. V. surprised that Indon spying scandal has not generated any content at Tony Abbott or Abbott Government. Is there a new article I've missed? 2007 would have seen edit warring yet some lasting content added. --Surturz (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To an extent I think it's a blowup too. I think the bigger issue and one that the media isn't explicitly pointing out but just going around the edges is that education shadow pyne said with abbott at a presser that they would give exactly the same amount of money to EACH school, not just overall. When pyne said it, Abbott didn't correct him. Abbott said they were on a unity ticket with Labor. With the Indon blowup, Abbott can be accused of mishandling it. With the schools funding, it's a clear and simple backflip from Mr No backflip. I note you didn't reply to prior comments I made :) Timeshift (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Lib NSW govt seething over this Abbott Lib fed govt broken promise. C'mon Surtz, don't go! But if you can't handle the heat now after just 3 months that does not bode well! :D Timeshift (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is Abbott continuing to dig a deeper hole for himself by further denying they've broken a promise? And claiming it's the fault of voters for not understanding their non-lie? Timeshift (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

51.5/48.5 to Labor - Morgan... And now Abbott claims the school funding is "back on"! If it's now on, is that an admission that it was off? And how is it "back on"? By making agreements with QLD/WA/NT!! NSW/Vic state Libs, come out come out where-ever you are! Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Senate results

Yes, I am about to generate the Senate results wikitables for Senate results for the Australian federal election, 2013. Thanks for setting up the 2013 page! I have imported the AEC data and tweaked the output script last night (it is of course a bit more complicated than the HoR results), I will try to run out the tables tonight. --Canley (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good :) Timeshift (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The discrepancy in the percentage in the SA table wasn't due to a script, I didn't use the script to calculate or round any swings or percentages - it's because I used the ABC data which didn't aggregate the unendorsed groups, which in hindsight was a mistake as the data is quite inaccurate or out of date (see my note on the talk page). It does say it's only a modelling of the count, but I don't know why they haven't updated it to the final data. I think I can get all the detail from the preference distribution files so I will check all these tonight. -Canley (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: the Coalition in the national Senate table. I listed them as the AEC has—ordered and separated by ballot paper group: as the Liberal/National Coalition where the Liberals and Nationals run on the same group ticket (New South Wales and Victoria), Liberals and Nationals where they run separately or against each other (South Australia and Western Australia), Liberals in states/territories with no Nationals presence (Tasmania, ACT), Liberal National Party in Queensland and Country Liberals in Northern Territory. I presume you mean listing them like this but grouped together, not merging all the parties into a single total (as in the summary table on the election page)? --Canley (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm kind of in two minds about how to list the Liberal and National parties... in 2010, we all made a big thing about how the WA Nationals were not part of the Coalition (and they are listed separately in the Senate results table) because of the whole Tony Crook thing—which was of course exacerbated by the importance of crossbenchers in that parliament. We also have the additional complication of the South Australian Nationals (also not technically in the Coalition) running candidates in both houses this year. However, the WA Nats are aggregated into the Coalition vote in 2007, but separated along with Queensland Nationals in the 2004 results—it's already quite inconsistent and complex from one election to another, and I guess this doesn't help introducing another variation!

My preference would be to consistently list the groups as on the Senate ballot papers each year (and if that's how the AEC does it, are the aggregated figures and inclusion in the Coalition being manually calculated and determined by the editor?)—however that is also confusing as the Coalition is listed as such when they run in the same group, with along with four other parties. This would need explanatory notes and notations of the states in which that applies I suppose. I don't really feel strongly about it either way, other than wanting to be consistent and correct as I'm sure we all do. Probably needs a broader discussion and consensus... should I raise it at WP:AUSPOL, or even ask Antony Green at his blog? --Canley (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For information's sake - it's a fun one. The Nationals in WA ran against the Liberals in three seats, and went to 2PP in two of them. Unlike in past years the Labor Party didn't preference the Nationals ahead in an effort to "brand" them as a coalition. To add to the fun, for the last year of his term, Tony Crook *was* part of the coalition, but the Nationals as a party were not. (It's believed to be one of the reasons he wasn't given the chance to run for a second term.) Orderinchaos 09:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Have a very Festivus

	Have a very Festivus
	I hope your family take your Airing of Grievances to heart, and that you prevail during the demonstration of Feats of Strength. --Surturz (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Defeatist! I sure hope for your sake that the Libs don't capitulate as easy as you've done :) Timeshift (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This was in response to this :-) Newspoll says I don't need to buy you a Christmas present. :-) --Surturz (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Morgan and Reachtel and Nielsen and Bludgertrack all agree with Newspoll :) Ho ho ho! Government telling the opposition to change their policies. But the opposition's winning in opinion polls, so why change? Sound familiar? :) Jeez, can't even get past maiden speeches and in record time the new govt is already losing. No honeymoon with the associated political capital to spare, gotta lose and regain govt to enjoy one. What a shame for the Libs. Merry Christmas! Timeshift (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox election

You (correctly!) reverted my edit to Template:Infobox election because it had broken Next Australian federal election. So I've taken the time to fix that problem. Can you have a look and see if it's OK? Thanks. —GoldRingChip 13:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hi Timeshift9! As you don't seem to be editing at the moment, I've semi'd your take page for a bit because of ongoing vandalism. I'm happy to remove it if you would prefer. - Bilby (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy for admins to judge it. I don't need no newbies posting, happy with the regulars :) Timeshift (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

New Citation Template for S.A. parliamentarians

Hi Timeshift9, I see that you edit some S.A. politician articles, I've created a template that you may find useful — Template:Cite SA-parl — any feedback welcome. I've used it on this stub article I created George Soward, as an example. I based it on the Victorian Past Members template Template:Cite re-member. — Diverman (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Division/branch

You probably know more than I do. They certainly do now; I do remember some name changes a while back but can't seem to find any. At the moment the Queensland branch of the ALP is officially "Australian Labor Party (State of Queensland)" but the others all conform. Frickeg (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually, I just seem to recall a consistency from things ive come across that the ALP uses branch and Libs use division as a seperate to the name, ie: "Australian Labor Party (State of Queensland) - Queensland branch" or some such. Timeshift (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Motoring Enthusiast Party

The MOU between Muir and Clive Palmer was made in the name of the Motoring Enthusiast Party: [44], so presumably he is still representing the party (though as far as I'm aware, Muir has hardly talked to the media since being elected). The MOU is notably vague and non-committal. Whether the Motoring Enthusiast Party is an actually-functioning political outfit seems an interesting question though. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Glass jaw

The Twit universe is not the most encyclopaedic, but sometimes it is quite apt: https://twitter.com/phonytonyabbott/status/428520506791194625 Hope you enjoy. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You know who...

...has just been blocked for 72 hours. Thanks for your input. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And he's still not learning either. And i'm only just reading the ANI now - LOL! Tried 30 seconds of Talk:Soccer in Australia but didn't realise it was such a saga so I gave up. Timeshift (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

LOOK! He's learning!! Timeshift (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not. I do find it amusing however that someone who was just blocked finds it so compulsive to find another editor to argue with so quickly - and doing so while banned except but from one's own talk page - quite the achievement! Timeshift (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how you leave just one message on a talkpage, and they're all over it like a rash. But they actually feel justified in leaving 30 on another. Go figure. But after reading that ANI, i'm truly surprised he's still here at all. You'd think he hates wikipedia. As another admin said - it's good to see your new moderation HiLo. Some don't learn, you do! Timeshift (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised he's still here. Too many Admins won't investigate things fully. I'll admit that Soccer page is a challenge, and you admitted it was too much to read it all. That doesn't bother some of our Admins. They leap to conclusions without reading it all, so without all the evidence, and use a machine gun on a turntable, with rubber bullets, for justice. I guess they think they're doing a good job, but it allows bad faith editors to stick around, and to gather more ammunition to use against people like me. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Do the investigation for them - they're only human. Provide diffs! It mightn't feel fair and feels like you're doing their job, but it'll get actioned a lot quicker and fairer. Timeshift (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Tried that. Didn't work. Took him to AN/I, only to experience the usual pile-on of bigotry against me. It's normal behaviour for many of those whose POV pushing I have challenged in the past. And that includes several Admins. No idea how they ever got the gig. But experience tells me they'll never lose it. Wikipedia has some core problems with no mechanism to fix them. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If they do it's not on purpose, and if the argument is reasoned, valid and backed up with evidence, for every admin crank out there there'll be another one who sees the argument and validates it. Timeshift (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, in at least two cases it was blatantly "on purpose". I had not long previously got in the way of some POV pushing by them. They clearly wanted to get rid of me. It's happened before too. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think most admins try to do a good job and WP:CONSENSUS should sort out the bad eggs, in the end. But it's a volunteer job and believe it or not, it can get to extremes like suicide threats. It's not a job I envy. Timeshift (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure they all try to do what they believe is a good job. Trouble is, their POV can get in the way. Bad Admins have the same power as good Admins, and no Admins, even the good ones, will do anything serious about the bad ones. As for them being volunteers, I'm reminded of the huge debate in Melbourne when David Hookes was killed by one punch from a bouncer at a pub. The point was made that often the worst person to employ as a bouncer is someone who desperately wants to be a bouncer. Big power trips and egos, combined with a preference for solving problems with violence. I sometimes think a similar problem exists with some who have sought Adminship. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"I will have zero-to-little tolerance" from John's page. I see what you mean. They get called out when they're doing the wrong thing though. Timeshift (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not always, I can assure you. HiLo48 (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I know, but given enough exposure and time, they inevitably always will be. Timeshift (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And he still hasn't read Wikipedia:Talk page stalker despite having linked it for him - "A talk page stalker (sometimes known as a WikiJaguar or talk page watcher) is an individual who keeps an eye on one or more users' talk pages (often via the watchlist) and answers or adds input to threads in which the stalker is not directly involved". I'm free to involve myself in as little or many disputes as I wish. Unlike him who creates his own rules! One would assume 'stay out of it' means only two people can ever be in a discussion, because one is no longer a discussion and 3 means someone stepped in to it? Sorry I'm really not sure about such zany rules. And I only just saw the bit about him blaming me for his block saying it wouldn't have got that far if I stayed out of it - LOL! Let's just ignore the previous blocks and the debates up until 2 minutes to midnight when I gave my 6 reasoned comments (and it wouldn't have even been 6 if he understood that a user has a right to tell others to stay off their talkpage)? I'd love to know at what point I was inflaming it. Before or after the block, and what diff? Hurrrr. He should avoid getting the WP:LASTWORD. After all - this is my talkpage i'm commenting on, i'm not violating policies, and he's the one with ANIs all over him, has a block, and is still using offensive language. He should stop caring about what's on other people's talkpages - like this and HiLo's. Timeshift (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow that account was started in 2005 and has now ragequit[45]. --Surturz (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

He'll be back. But based on his long-term bad behaviour and threats to leave over a period of time, I can't say i'll miss him if he doesn't. And I only knew of him as of today and barely said a thing! As for you Mr Surtzey, content contribution? Way to go :D Timeshift (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. Doesn't feel right unless Merbabu reverts me within an hour though :-) --Surturz (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Now there's a name I haven't seen in a while. Semi-retired but still editing I see. Maybe if I had Schapelle Corby on my watchlist i'd have known. But she's not coming anywhere near my watchlist :P Timeshift (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Who is Schapelle Corby? I have imposed a topic ban on her entering my sphere of consciousness. (a little talk page stalking by Djapa Owen (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC))

As you can see Surtzy, ragequits are empty threats. Timeshift (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, now I'm contemptible, and have a "lack of respect for authority and self delusions of grandeur". Makes me kinda proud. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm impressed with how long you've been able to maintain civility in your arguments. See how far you can get with honey? :) Timeshift (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

SA Newspoll

I don't have any links other than the news reports sorry, so I was just guessing what the Nationals and Other primary votes were. Should I change those sections to blank until they publish the full results? Kirsdarke01 (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

'Other' was published but I can't see the Nats anywhere. Without the Nats, it adds up to 100% anyway, however roundings can always give illusion. It's hard to say. I'd take it out for now but surely the PDF is somewhere on the internet! I can't find it :( Timeshift (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Found it. It was indeed <.5%. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Senate tables

Belatedly, thanks for letting me know about the WA discussion. I picked a most inopportune time to unexpectedly lose internet for two weeks. Frickeg (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No internet for two weeks, were you getting wikipedia withdrawals and was wikipedia the first site to visit upon your internet reconnection? :D Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. Tragic. :) Frickeg (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sort of. My watchlist doesn't actually go back that far since it's so ridiculously huge (now approaching 6,500 pages!! Although a huge bunch of those are dusty biographies that virtually never get edited). I'm actually just wandering around all the areas I normally edit and seeing what's been going on. I'm sure there's a ton I'll have missed (occasionally I stumble upon an electorate page that's been off for months, for example), but I feel like I'm kind of catching up. Will be ready to start some content work soon, although I may wait until after 15 March since that will bring so much work in itself. Frickeg (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

SA historical election results

I'm sorry, I usually put up the links on the main election a few minutes before I start the pages so that people don't come along and slap Orphan tags on them. On the other suggestion, I've been a bit put off on putting the results up in election district pages because of all the other times editors were whining and making deletion and merger requests that I have to battle if I start up results pages for abolished districts (especially ones that weren't around for long). However, with your suggestion, I'll see if I can fill those in as I go along after this one. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It was seat results pages, namely here and [[46]] that and maybe a few more but I've forgotten. Also, alright, I'll put the pages up first before linking them. Lastly, okay, I'll have a go at making pendulums when I get the chance. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Candidates of the South Australian state election, 2014 Revision

I made the revision to the Greens candidate to Fisher because I actually know the candidate personally and I know how to spell her first name correctly Frejr001 (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

But you're not a WP:RS, are you? Also, the Greens source itself concurs with ECSA and ABC. Timeshift (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)