User talk:Timeshift9/Archive12

SA

You must be happy! What a shocker for the Liberals, even if they do scrape together a minority government. Meanwhile I'm just crossing my fingers that Annabel Digance definitely wins Elder, because then we can have an article on her. (It's sad, but that is a significant factor in how much I want individual candidates to win now - blue links in previous election articles. It has softened the blow of many a recent Coalition landslide. It's also why I'm pulling for Madeleine Ogilvie from amongst that unpalatable bunch of Labor types still in the running in Denison.) Frickeg (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh i'm very happy, I was expecting the Libs to easily win a majority a week ago. I'm again shocked with seats like Light and Mawson, but they do have good local members. I don't think the Libs will scrape together a minority govt. I think the final result will be 23 Labor, 22 Liberal, 2 Independent. Brock will go through the motions but end up supporting Labor. Who knows what Such will do, but he's been Speaker under Labor before and he could do so again. And considering how the SA Libs did their scorched earth tactic in independent seats, i'd say the indies wouldn't be liking the Libs a whole lot at the moment. It will also inherantly be a more stable minority government by Labor relying on one independent than the Libs relying on two, esp Brock. But even if the Libs do somehow scrape together a minority govt, it will be hilarious after how the Libs have treated minority governments like the devil. SA did it easily in 2002 and we can do it again. And yes, I like Digance too, and she's won. A current swing of just 0.1 against her to still be on 51.9 2pp, she's home and hosed. "You can't trust Habib" over council funding cuts vs Lindsay pamphlet scandal... seriously, glass houses. Except for Cory Bernardi, for once in his life. My favourite quote of the election night goes to Xenophon... "The Libs fought this as though it was a game of lawn bowls". :D Also amused at how many minor/micro upper house candidates talked themselves up massively but failed abysmally. Collectively, the non-parliamentary party vote got slashed by a quarter. I call it the Druery factor, people waking up to funky ATL pref flows and avoiding them like the plague :) I expect the same pattern at the WA Senate election. Timeshift (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I was pretty happy with the LC result as well - pretty much status quo, except Bressington's seat going to the Libs. Very glad no micros got up; slightly bemused so many people really think John Darley is going to serve a full term, but maybe they trust Xenophon to choose someone decent (to which I say: Ann Bressington, Exhibit A. At least she's gone). Also interesting to see Palmer doing so badly both there and in Tas (not to mention Katter, who may as well merge with PUP right now). Frickeg (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

At one point, Druery's magic almost got the Shooters and Fishers over the line, but that was erased as counting continued. Bressington was like a Lib anyway, so definately status quo. And PUP was always going to go downhill after the 2013 fed election. But he'll retain his seat at the next election even though he doesn't show up to parliament... only in that wacky state of QLD! Timeshift (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

So Marshall is claiming a clear first preference majority with 44.3%. Interesting definition of a "clear majority". Djapa Owen (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Abbott says the party with the 2pp majority has the right to govern a hung parliament! lol! Timeshift (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

So nice to know that the outcome of the 2010 federal hung parliament met with Abbott's approval. Either way, an indictment of the Libs' suburban Adelaide campaigns and candidate selections. Not to mention Bignell and Piccolo - they remind me of Peter Watson in WA, defying the trend every time. Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Annabel Digance :) And she's gone from a -0.1% swing to a +0.4% swing. Fancy that, Labor increasing their post-election-night vote ;) Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yay. And look at all those lovely blue links. :) Frickeg (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Adelaide meetup

Hi Timeshift9, I've just suggested a date for the next WP Adelaide Meetup. Pdfpdf does come along to these events, and he's not a bad chap, really, once you get to know him. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bahudhara, thanks for the offer, and i'm sure Pdfpdf is nice in person, but i'll pass thankyou :) Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

SA Election Results

I would have included the 2pp vote as well as the 2cp vote for those seats, but I can't seem to find them anywhere. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll find Heysen here however for Fisher, Frome and Mt Gambier, just insert 2PP with the percentage only from here until the individual vote numbers are released by the ECSA. Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've got the script working to output the results tables, and I'm just tweaking the 2CP part... Should the swing be from Antony Green's notional margin calculations, or ECSA's or just last election's margins? I was presuming the ABC ones re: the discussion on the talk page. I'm not sure what the usual arrangement is for SA. I've got all three sets of margins so no problem to change them around if needed. --Canley (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I'd go with Antony's. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox on WA Senate election page

Hi Timeshift I saw you reverted my addition of the Infobox at Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014. You said that because it's not a House election an Infobox is not required. I'm not sure why you say this? What is the precedent for this? Thanks LordFixit (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Australian Senate election, 1970 and the other 3 Senate-only elections. If you want to include it then you can gain consensus on the article's talkpage for your disputed change. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

New proposal at Talk:Independent (politician)#Requested move

The proposed move of Independent (politician) has been altered to the new title of Political independent. This notice is in case you would like to review your !vote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Random question

To someone who knows a lot more about SA politics than I do: regarding this story, I never realised (or registered) that Russell Wortley was in the Right. Because I remember Dana being in the Hard Left with all the Makin/Senate stuff in 2004. Are they really from different factions, or did one or both of them switch at some point? Has anyone ever addressed it? Frickeg (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure sorry. Timeshift (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This article in Green Left Weekly from 1994 mentions a split in the SA Labor left faction, with the new left faction, the Progressive Labour Alliance, being led by Russell Wortley. So he does seem to have switched at some point. --Canley (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Better source request for File:JosephCook4.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:JosephCook4.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

re your comment

Re: [1], if that so, they should be asked to abide by WP:NPA . This constant edit warring from that user is starting to get pretty tedious, and they've already been warned numerous times not to do it, but they just can't help themselves. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here. Timeshift (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That's absurd. Why this user is taking this too seriously in the sense that they have to label other editors "extremist" is baffling. They should look at their own editing, and what cause they're eagerly pushing in articles, before judging others. And stop edit warring too. Very counter-productive... considering that I'm sure they have good intentions, but they're ruining those intentions by carrying on like this. Learning the hard way must work, I suppose. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Heads up. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(Hmmm. It would appear that the block has made any "perceived urgency" somewhat academic ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC))

Party/MP

Regarding the stuff about MHS, I've started something at WT:AUP. I've been noticing that we have differing views on how to deal with this for years; it's about time we hashed it out! Frickeg (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for this edit, which is attempted outing. Graham87 15:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No, not Timeshift! --Pete (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't think. Indeed I should not have said what I said and for that I apologise to Philiashasspots. Graham87, considering my long-changed, very long-term good behaviour, can I please request I be unblocked and on thin ice? Timeshift (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Timeshift, how about you email me and we can meet offline to satisfy your curiosity about my identity. Assuming you have nothing to hide yourself. Philiashasspots (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No thankyou. Unlike some, I certainly don't have a style of editing that would make anyone think I have something to hide. How many Labor MP images have you uploaded? I've done quite a few Liberal MPs over the years. And tons of historical stuff that would be irrelevant to someone with a barrow to push. Not to mention i've known an unnamed admin for years and years who knows for a fact I have nothing to hide, though I won't mention them for their sake, though i'm sure many users would know who i'm referring to. Anywho, the point i'm making is, please don't infer things, which aren't true, without even an ounce of evidence. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you get your Liberal and Labor MP images? Philiashasspots (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you have a look? Flickr and US govt sites mostly. Like most wiki users. Any more questions? :) Timeshift (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm I've never used Flickr. Are you saying I have a style of editing that makes everyone think I have something to hide? I lost interest in adding photos after the hoops I had to jump through. I lost interest in editing wikipedia and fighting other editors who challenged my good-faith edits and hid their bias behind the wikipedia rules. Many South Australian wikipedia pages are in a poor state and lack content (because of deletionists) I tried contributing but .... whatever .... Philiashasspots (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What, you've never looked at this or this or this amongst many others? And yes, i'm saying you have a style of editing that looks sus. Two images to commons, Marshall and Hamilton-Smith, with image licenses that stick out like a sore foot. As for the rest of your post, i'm not sure if you're trying to bait or you're just frustrated, but many users have contributed to SA politics over a long period of time which has culminated in the most expansive freely available collection of information on the internet. Deletionists never win because consensus will always defeat it. Of course, let's not confuse deletionism with following wikipedia policies. Looking through your contribs I particularly like this edit with a summary of "Answered Collect, Mkativerata, Kevin, Timeshift9 and Rrius" and on the page you say "have some non-biased people take a look"... yes, we're all biased and wrong and you're singularly unbiased and right, and without a WP:COI! *scoff* Timeshift (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I said I have not looked at Flickr. I added the Marshall pic after he was made leader and his page had no image of him. I explained it all back then. The Libs would not give me the image until Confidential in the Advertiser did a short bit on Marshalls headless Wikipedia page or something. Then after you deleted the image I had to get them to license the image publicly and it wasted my time and irritated me. My point about the SA politics articles is they are very heavy in what I consider useless "statistic facts" that most SA politics editors love. I don't think the general public and wikipedia readers give a damn about all the stats and swings and polls. A lot of biographical facts are not being added to Labor politicians articles because of general editor bias to the left of SA politics and using the wikipedia rules. Where-as biographical dirt on Liberal SA politicians is done and ignoring the wikipedia rules. I'm a swinging voter with a bias towards the right. I've voted labor before in SA. No-one pays me. No one pulls my strings or tells me what to do. Yes I believe you all are biased when it comes to certain things and I am biased in the opposite direction. The wikipedia rules are not being applied evenly and consistently. Why isn't there a page on the "Saint Clare Land Swap Deal", "Dodgy-gate", "Stashed cash affair", etc? I have contempt for most politicians. Still not sure what WP:COI you are referring to. Philiashasspots (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You asked where I got my images from, and I told you, and pointed out that it should be obvious where they are sourced based on the image information. It's how the average wikipedian tends to source images. I'm sorry that following image use guidelines came across to you as time wasting and irritating. And your biographical facts, like the example I pointed out above, were not covered in WP:RS, just unsubstantiated court documents, which if included violates WP:BLP. I never said the Liberals pay you or pull your strings or tell you what to do. I'm sorry you seem to think we're all biased towards the left but that's just your unsubstantiated opinion. Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm just tiring of your unprovoked unsubstantiated allegations that I have a WP:COI. Are this and this and this enough of a WP:RS to add a sentence to Jay Weatherill's article? I was going to last year but could not be bothered with all the fighting I knew it would cause. Philiashasspots (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's funny, you accuse me of unsubstantiated allegations and then that's precisely what your linked articles are!! :D Why don't you bring it up on Weatherill's talk page and see where discussion takes it? If you're not prepared to discuss if you can't "be bothered with all the fighting I knew it would cause" as you put it, then perhaps wikipedia is not the place for you. Just sayin'. Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read the 3 linked articles or just scoff because it was from the Australian or Advertiser? I would not call them unsubstantiated or vexatious allegations. The case is still before the tribunal and a related case the Full Court of the Supreme Court. I'll discuss it on the Weatherill's talk page in due course. Philiashasspots (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No I didn't "just scoff because it was from the Australian or Advertiser". Just because they are less than reliable sources at times, doesn't mean they can never be used as a reference - heck, I use them for references. But these articles - first article uses "accused". Second article "claimed". Third article "allegation". Is this covered is any non News Ltd sources? Please raise it on the Weatherill page. If other editors were to disagree I wouldn't complain, but these sorts of accusations are a dime a dozen until proven otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It was covered by Today Tonight here. I also use the Australian and Advertiser for references. I might raise it on the Weatherill talk page soon. Philiashasspots (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

HAHAHA Today Tonight!! Talk about an own goal there! Word of advice: the only thing worse than using News Ltd is using Today Tonight. You're almost asking everyone to dismiss it simply by referring to Today Tonight! Gold! :D Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

:-) I was just answering your question about if it was covered anywhere else :-) I got the reaction I expected :-) Philiashasspots (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh good, i'm glad you weren't serious. That was a close one! Timeshift (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Graham87. As per outing guidelines, you may wish to delete what I put on Philiashasspots's talkpage. Timeshift (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I've redacted the text and requested oversight on the offending revisions. Graham87 04:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

By-elections

Thanks! That was me taking advantage of one of those rare times when I have the motivation to absolutely plough through something these days. Most of them are the stubbiest of stubs, though; I'd love to expand them properly some day, but the vast majority would have very, very few sources. How do you mean with the links in the MP articles? I know I used to put redlinks in the MPs' articles I wrote, generally. Still the states to do, of course. (It never ends, does it?) Frickeg (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh. Sounds daunting. Good luck, though! Frickeg (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really. If I ever got the time and sources to really expand some of the historical MP articles, then maybe. Frickeg (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts

The more I think about a certain difficult editor we both know well, the more I am drawn to this definition:

"Asperger syndrome...is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction..., alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development." (My bolding, of course.)

That I see this as an appropriate label makes it difficult to publicly discuss the person involved, hence my reluctance to leap in.

I'm not sure where we can take this. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I like his userpage. It's as if he's telling us what we don't already know, ha! Timeshift (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at it for the first time. Amazing. It fit's my hypothesis well. Very narrow perspective, and completely obsessive within it. And at least it's a more honest User page than those of some other POV pushers here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Very. Timeshift (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Queen of the Whitehouse

I'm afraid I'm getting far too much immoral pleasure from the discussion referenced at Talk:Tony Abbott#Frances Abbott, Queen of the Whitehouse. It's no good for my soul. I'd appreciate the input of somebody like yourself who has no such scruples. --Pete (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you have noticed or not, but I avoid editing Tony Abbott like the plague. There's a whole lot of cooks and very little broth. If I want to bang my head against a brick wall, there are many less odorous ones available. Timeshift (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought of you because you'd have a more open position than what I'm perceived to have, and you know your wikistuff backwards. FWIW, I'm less than impressed with TA. Increasing the gap between rich and poor, moving in the direction of the US in social structure, failing to honour election commitments, cronyism and so on. We need good honest community-minded politicians and there seems to be very few around. Jed Bartlett, maybe. --Pete (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

So you have a conscience after all. More than can be said for most neo-liberals :) But yet i'm sure somehow, by next election, you'll still vote for the Coalition. Timeshift (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I always vote independent, and I rank the sitting member last. --Pete (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering you live in Canberra i'm sure that comes very easy to you. My point stands :) Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I mix it up with the Senate and local government ballots. Love the ACT system. Be interesting to see how the microparty issue is handled. I'm guessing that the preferred approach will be to toughen things up for the small parties and keep above-the-line voting. My preference would be make it optional preferential - stop numbering when you run out of candidates you actually like. --Pete (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Look, a unicorn! You know, parliament is fascinating when the entire Coalition acts as though they were rusted-on Hawke/Keating voters :) Timeshift (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

FYI, I've done a dummy spit (or two). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It being past 2AM ...

... I'm very disappointed that you have not responded in support of my personal prejudices. What can I say? "C'est la vie"? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(P.S. Don't get too worried - I'm sure I'll survive. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC) )

... ok. Timeshift (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Rotfl! (Deservedly, you leave me speechless!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul Keating

Yeah, I'd noticed - was trying to reply but kept winding up in edit conflict hell.

I think the editor's just trolling for the lulz at this point. People don't act like that if they've got an actual content issue, even if it's a silly content issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

People get annoyed if other people refuse to assume good faith, refuse to explain their reverts, refuse to engage in a discussion that they themselves demanded. And your moronic claims, twice made, that you "couldn't understand" what I was saying, were the most productive input you could come up with, apparently. Reading the arguments and responding to them was all too much. And you wonder why someone might get annoyed with you. 187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, several people vs you, and i'm the problem. Bwahahahaha! Timeshift (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

9 reverts in an hour, and counting. Sheesh. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Be careful, as technically in stopping one person with a few others you technically violated 3RR too. Just be mindful :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I vehemently dispute that. I did not canvass any person to revert. If it's wrong it's wrong. Perhaps it wouldn't have taken several users if the IP didn't revert 10 times in an hour? Timeshift (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I know it was done in good faith in dealing with a disruptive user, but unless the content you revert is clear vandalism, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Not warning you or anything of that nature, just politely pointing out to be careful. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: Not saying any sort of canvasing went on I know the whole group was trying to stop the disruptive user. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-read what you said... I think you misread material for users. Timeshift (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:187.17.52.174

I noticed you and IP User:187.17.52.174 are in a bit of a clash on his page. User talk:187.17.52.174 keeps blanking his talk page. Backendgaming (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not fussed if he blanks his talkpage. His behaviour speaks for itself. Timeshift (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of tension between you and the IP. Report this guy if it gets out of hand. Backendgaming (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

He's been blocked once and will likely be blocked again if he keeps up his behaviour. Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Middle names etc.

I get them from all sorts of places. I used to get a lot from the Who's Who, but I don't have instant access anymore and they're really bad about updating lately anyway. A good place for middle names is the Hansard, which usually has a list of members with full names at the start of every edition, regardless of state. Speirs's middle name is James. (That was actually me, btw, a while back, but it may have got mixed up in the IP's edits.) Birth dates are trickier and I'm beginning to despair for a lot of the current ones since they just don't list them anymore - even the states I used to be able to rely on, like Queensland, have a big chunk they just never get around to listing. SA used to have the birth years at least in the Electoral Commission's reports on the election, but they didn't do that for 2010 and I doubt they will for 2014 either. Frickeg (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a reference for Speirs' middle name here. He was also born in Scotland in around 1985. --Canley (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, they include all the full names on the return of the election writ (as Frickeg refers to above): [2]. --Canley (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Just colour me...

...thoughtless. My apologies. --Pete (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Confused

Regarding the deletion of File:David Speirs.jpg, I've followed the steps layed out by the Wikipedia:Image use policy and cannot see how I'm supposed to change the source information if it is all properly entered following the steps Wikipedia has in place to upload images. I have been given this file to me by David Speirs and have also been given all rights to use it. I do not understand what you want me to do to stop the deletion of this file. Arixp (talk) 23:56, 02 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? You suddenly think after removing this on your talk page without reason or explanation that i'd be suddenly willing to help you without even so much as a sorry? I'll give you one hint and it's more than you deserve - you cannot say that permission will be provided upon request, it must be provided for all to see. Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Bob Day picture

You removed a picture I uploaded. You said images on aph.gov.au are not Creative Commons. But the copyright info tab on the aph.gov,au website says it is. Specifically it says:-

"With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and where otherwise noted, all material presented on this website is provided under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence."

http://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Disclaimer_Privacy_Copyright#c

Please reinstate the picture.

Terjepetersen (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Non commercial no deriv. Learn creative commons licensing. Timeshift (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

New articles

These are at User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult. Somebody's got to put them in some order.--Grahame (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

We often disagree, hence it would seem to me that you are a good person to find the holes in my ideas.

I have in mind that I'd like to create an article along the lines of List of owners of so-called "Australian icons"
(Yeah, it's a really bad page name - but that can be addressed ... )

It would contain things like:

• Vegemite - Kraft (Swiss)
• Fosters - xxxx (South African)
• Farmer's Union Iced Coffee - Kirin (Japanese)

and

• Coopers (SA Family owned)
• Bickfords Australia (SA Family owned)

and

• AMSCOL - defunct

etc.

What do you think?
Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest/opinion. Timeshift (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh.

Oh well, thanks for replying.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

NSW by-elections

Ha! You pipped me by 30 seconds to updating the articles about the Liberals not contesting! Were you watching Insiders? --Canley (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I am :D (Gerard Henderson on two weeks in a row, ugh) Then went to news.google for the cite :) (I could only find the one ref) As if they're not contesting either by-election! When was the last time an incumbent party didn't contest a by-election? Poor Surtzy must be reeling. Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Bahahaha @ Henderson and Marr's on-screen tiff that just happened. Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about state-level, but I bet it's a long, long time. Federally it's only happened once, the Wide Bay by-election, 1928. I assume there has to be some sort of backstory there (especially given it was a father succeeding a son), but I've never got around to digging it up. Frickeg (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't count it when one conservative party succeeds another... As far as NSW goes, Antony said "Newcastle and Charlestown by-elections are first in NSW since 1906 not re-contested by holding party". Timeshift (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition

Hi I in this edit you left this message in the edit summary, "(stop it The Tepes. I've already told you.)" I just wanted to know what you were talking about? Cheers.

If you look at my edit that accompanied that edit summary, it would show you I removed a copyrighted non-free image of Hewson. Timeshift (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh that. That wasn't my image. Someone else uploaded that to Hewson's page, I assumed since it was on the page there were no copy right issues, so naturally I added it to relevant pages. I was wondering why you called me out. Cheers The Tepes (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Such

I was going off this ABC article, which says that he'd died the day before. It sounds like your source may be better and the ABC may be wrong though? The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your total reversion of my edits of the Electoral district of Fisher

I always edit with the general reader as my audience. I amended the entry because second paragraph was a 20-line-long unbroken slab of material, containing some very unclear, even garbled, information. In particular the material was confusing as regards the distinction between two-candidate-preferred and two-party-preferred results.

Despite what the edit history appears to show, if you actually read the second (and subsequent) paragraphs I wrote, you will see that it relies heavily on previous material. I did not delete much material at all.

If an editor cannot delete or modify any material at all from an existing entry, what is the point? If I "try again" to improve the problems with the existing article, the result will be similar and I don't want to get involved in an editing war. So could you please look carefully at my edit and tell me the specific things I removed which should be retained, and the things I added which should be removed?

Tullyvallin (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Labor finished ahead of the Liberals on a 59.4 percent two-party vote from a 15.1 percent two-party swing, marking the first time since the 1985 election that Labor won the two-party vote in Fisher". And i'm sorry you have trouble distinguishing the difference between two-party and two-candidate preferred. Timeshift (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Victorian pre-election pendulum

Uh oh, Antony Green was very critical of Wikipedia a few days ago regarding the Pre-election pendulum for the Victorian state election, 2014 which you created. It should not have been based on the post-2010 pendulum as there was a redistribution underway. I've had a go at updating it just now, can you have a look? --Canley (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering he has a wikipedia account, i'm very tempted to sofixit him :) Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh! :) I'm just doing the maps for the Victorian election now and setting up the results database to generate the tables. How about the latest scandal today? I'm getting that Lindsay pamphlets feeling again! -Canley (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Which scandal? I just can't keep up anymore hah. Timeshift (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Pornography ring running from the Premier's office (allegedly). Gold! --Canley (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought you may had been referring to that but how does it give you a Lindsay pamphlets feeling? Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Election links talk page

Given your previous input you may be interested in this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Election_links The Tepes (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

South Australian House of Assembly

As an editor of South Australian political articles I think you should be informed that You Know Who has taken it upon himself to edit the image for the seats of Parliament, much like he's done for the federal level.The Tepes (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Its been made clear over a long period of time that he has no interest in collaboration. In this case, and if he doesn't want to change, he should just leave wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Want to throw in your two cents Talk:South Australian House of Assembly? The Tepes (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Electoral district of Adelaide

Hi TS9! Just started expanding Kenneth Bardolph stub, and couldn't find the multi-seat Electoral district of Adelaide 1933–1938 held by his brother Douglas Bardolph. Before I do something that might have to be reverted, does it exist already and I just can't find it? Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there is one. I am against articles like Electoral district of MacKillop however, what an eyesore. I wonder if there's a way to make them auto-collapse, or failing that, move to a different article... Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at McKillop; you're right. But this addition wouldn't be very big or complicated - just a separate table above the existing one? Easy to do, easy to follow. Doug butler (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

So 40 years of Electoral district of Torrens worth? I'd really love someone to come along and auto-collapse non-current tables in these articles... Timeshift (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've got an Excel table of the members for Adelaide from 1902 to 1938 if you want me to do the table layout, or just check it when you've done it. I remember having a discussion about including the months in these lists—useful information I guess but very messy looking. --Canley (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I really don't want the tables myself... not in their current implementation anyway. Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The simpler the better. Tables are really useful for seeing who succeeded whom and who sat with whom. Years of course, and color coding for parties. If you're after more details that's a click away. Doug butler (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've done a table for the four-member period from 1902 to 1915 and put it in the article. Two issues: the rows should overlap more where year ranges don't align, but that is very difficult to code but I'll keep trying. Also not sure of some of the non-Labor parties of some of the members, or of the particular brands of Labor around that time (United Labor, Lang Labor, Independent Labor). --Canley (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My how I wish we could auto-collapse previous incarnations. Timeshift (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Done! Have another look... --Canley (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I LOVE IT! *kiss* Would you be prepared to go further and do the same to other similar SA state electorate articles? Timeshift (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, very nice work to all involved. I know from NSW what a pain multi-member electorates are to code, source, etc. Where they should be overlapping, I always just put an extra colour row in there (as in, instead of having rowspan for the colours, just repeat the colours for every row. You can kind of tell that it's a cheat but at least it's accurate). For early Labor incarnations, The Drover's Wife is the person to talk to. And lastly ... I'm sorry to say it, but I really, really hate the idea of autocollapsing previous incarnations. They are just as important as the current one, and if they're a bit massive, well, they're a huge part of what makes up election articles. We might as well auto-collapse the results tables if we're going down that road. Frickeg (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the SA electorate articles were originally deficient because the parliament's online resources only went back so far when they were originally created, and so I'm not surprised that some of them lack members from the multi-member era.

As for the parties: the article currently doesn't have the full story for two of the Adelaide members: Denny was one of the MPs booted out of the Labor Party in the 1931 split and sat as Premiers' Plan or Ministerial Labor until the 1934 reuniting of the party, and Collaton was Lang (1931-1932), then a Lang splinter party (1932), and then official Labor (1932-1933), not just straight Labor. George was Labor throughout. I can't tell you much about the turn of the century groupings - am just well-read about the 1931 split. I can't code tables for shit so hopefully someone else can find a way to get this across in the article.

I have no particular opinion about the autocollapsing: while I agree that they're just as important, I've always thought the multiple tables looked bloody ugly. I don't think we've ever found a good table solution - my overall preference was back in the olden days when we just put the MPs for multi-member electorates in a single-file list same as the others. I'm not terribly fussed either way though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm politically naïve compared to you guys, but I spent a lot of time scouring the contemporary newspapers, and Bardolph's "party" after Lang Labor was always labelled "Lab." or "Labor"; the only references to "Independent Labor" or was by journalists. Australian Labor Party was always "A.L.P." in election results and lists of candidates. [[Australian Labor Party|A.L.P.]] makes more sense than [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]]. Autocollapse makes no sense to me with such small tables, especially where there's members who span both several tables. Thanks for the other fixes. Doug butler (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Which sources? Not stirring, genuinely curious. My hunch would be (from memory, it's been a while) that a lot of the broader sources threw the entire split era into the too hard basket and papered over all the party changes (essentially thinking "well they were all still "Labor" of some sort"), which is why I had such a bastard of a time even working out who got kicked out of the party to form the PPLP/MLP. But I'd have to go over them again to check that! The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Frickeg: Do you really prefer it to look like Electoral district of MacKillop or Electoral district of Torrens? Why would we collapse the results table when it's the most recent? That would be like autocollapsing the current incarnation MP list too - or like putting every historical result on to the same page rather than Electoral results for the district of x articles. Sorry to say, but historical is not as important as current. They certainly are important and need to be there, nobody is arguing otherwise, but current always takes priority over historical - it's what the bulk of visitors would be looking for.

Drover: Yes, multiple tables indeed look "bloody ugly".

Doug Butler: Labor is used all over wikipedia, not "A.L.P.".

I've got a bold suggestion. How about the result table comes first, then the members list comes second and we start latest MP at top and earliest MP at bottom? Sounds like a radical idea, I know, but it would be in order of what the average reader would be on average wanting to read first. Timeshift (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a little disingenous, because neither MacKillop (a gigantic mess) nor Torrens uses the currently standard format. To use a better example, would I rather it looked like Electoral district of Murrumbidgee? Yes. I acknowledge that it is not exactly the tidiest-looking thing in the world, but it's the best we've come up with. I'm certainly open to suggestions for improving these tables, but I don't think collapsing them is the answer, and I absolutely disagree that current takes precedence over historical - that is WP:RECENTISM.

I agree with Timeshift on Labor vs. ALP, though. Labor at least gives some information for the total novice (i.e. a non-Australian), whereas no one outside Australia would have a clue what ALP stands for.

Not a fan of the idea that we reverse the order. To begin with it would require a colossal amount of work, which I really don't think is warranted by the size of the problem. (We are just now getting to the stage where most of the member tables are standardised. It's taken years. We shouldn't change it again without a very good reason.) I also find it another example of WP:RECENTISM, not to mention counter-intuitive. People expect to see members listed in chronological order, with the earliest first. I don't think most people come to the electorate pages looking for just the election results, and I think their current position is best. Frickeg (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Frickeg that Electoral district of Murrumbidgee is a damn sight better than what the multi-member SA articles look like, and if we could get them all to looking like that I'd be particularly happy. I agree with both of you on Labor vs ALP for the reasons Timeshift stated. I also disagree with the suggestion of reversing the order - marginally because it's counter-intuitive but mainly because of the epic shit-ton of work for very minimal gain. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Electoral district of Murrumbidgee is so long :( The majority of casual readers will want to know about Adrian Cruickshank or Adrian Piccoli rather than John Hay or George Macleay, yet they come last and all the way down the bottom of the article. I think of it like List of x state by-election articles. Most recent comes first. The most recent one is the one most likely that readers will want to look at. Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Cruickshank was a backbencher fifteen years ago; I highly doubt people want to know more about him than, say, George Dibbs, a former premier. But anyway, we don't want to be making those judgement calls. Piccoli, as the current member, is mentioned in the very first paragraph, and also would be mentioned in the infobox if there was one (no objection to that here). The by-elections article is really a different case entirely. Further on the order: I also foresee significant problems in how this would be organised. How would party switches be handled? Does this mean that, say, Hamilton-Smith would appear first as Independent - that's clearly a misleading impression. Also, does any source anywhere list members in reverse?

I'll also say that I chose Murrumbidgee as the example because it's about as long as they get, being (with Parramatta) the oldest electorate in Australia, at least until next year. Hardly any electorates would approach that length. Frickeg (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, bad example, but my point stands IMHO. Timeshift (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Warning

You need to be very careful about calling other editors' work "silly" in your edit summaries. I have reverted. Let us see whether more polite editors object; if they don't, there is no issue. Tony (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Electoral district of Kaurna

In regards to your recent revert, how was the information controversial? The division of pre-selections between factional lines is common practice. The information was cited as part of an article from a national news outlet and give better insight into the electorate.

Factional preselection divisions require a WP:RS, you can't just use a blog. Use a RS and there won't be an issue. Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we've never had a discussion about whether The Poll Bludger is a reliable source and I think we probably should. Personally, I think it is a "blog" in the same way that that Antony Green's Blog is a "blog": William Bowe is probably the second foremost election analyst in the country behind Green, the foremost on the areas Green doesn't cover, and the ABC's stand-in when Green isn't available (e.g. when there's simultaneous state elections), and I think he should be considered a reliable source. That said, I think your removal was fine - the text you removed mischaracterised what the source actually said and made a big deal out of a minor thing that warranted brief mention at best. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with all your words. Poll Bludger is part of Crikey - perhaps we should have an AUP discussion/vote to sort out once and for all whether Crikey, and/or Poll Bludger, can be a WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this would be a really good idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As you were the one to say "we've never had a discussion about whether The Poll Bludger is a reliable source and I think we probably should", do you want to start up a discussion? :) Timeshift (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year :-) --Surturz (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And to you stranger! Timeshift (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Diagrams

Just revert it.

Three greys? Well one was Xenophon team and the other two were Independents.

DestinationAlan (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Parliamentary Portraits: Hey there, sorry to bother you again but what is the licencing policy on images of politicians from the Parliamentary websites? DestinationAlan (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Usually not allowed as they are copyrighted. Are you just asking, or do you have an example on wikipedia? Timeshift (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just asking because it feels "frustrating" to see an empty blank space on the 2018 Victorian Election page or most likely the 2015 NSW Election Page. DestinationAlan (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but don't you think if we could use them, we would be using them? :) Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Victorian State Election Charts

Hey mate, your chart looks better than mine, it's just that the President of the Legislative Council (a Liberal who was re-elected yesterday) is shown as a Labor MLC. If you could fix that up, that would be great.

LeoC12 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder why the opposition would allow one of their own to be President and in effect give the govt an extra vote, assuming the vote isn't tied? Timeshift (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be because the President has an ordinary deliberative vote just like any other member, as distinct from the speaker of the lower house. As for the chart which I added, I will correct it when it can, but the solution is not to replace it with an inferior chart that doesn't even show a president at all, among its other problems. Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Leadership Ballot

Do you think there needs to be a page regarding the leadership ballot for Labor in NSW? I was reading the Grauniad and they reported that Michael Daley has declared himself as a candidate. In regards to your response about the parliamentary portraits, you've got a fair point! DestinationAlan (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

We do federal leadership change pages but I don't think there's any state ones out there. In regards to not being able to use official portraits, everyone shares the frustration, but on the upside, it fosters engagement with politicians. Some politicians/staffers do actively give wikipedia high-quality photos, a better outcome than the generic fake-looking official portraits, as better than nothing as they may be. Timeshift (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that's a massive bonus then! You think emailing a few pollies will work? As for leadership ballots. Do you think it's necessary or? I mean I couldn't find much info on the latest Vic Lib ones. But the NSW one is pretty big because it's on the eve of a state election. Hopefully, the media does report something than "So and so is new xyz party leader" DestinationAlan (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Balance of power

Why did you revert an edit I made at Balance of power (parliament) removing a ludicrous claim? Colonial Overlord (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

10:30 on a Saturday night, and we're both editing Wikipedia. I guess that means we have something in common? Season's Greetings! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

We're both at home in the Adelaide CBD in Mid-January...? Timeshift (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL! (So it would seem ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts on recent elections

Hi Timeshift9. They said one term governments did not exist but we have just seen in the last few months both Victoria and QLD. I didn't expect tonight for sure. I think people these days are smarter with less patience, when they see a bad government they toss them out no matter what. It is also very bad for the Liberal party that while the former Labor govts were in power for a long time, they cannot even last a term. I believe in NSW there won't be as large as a swing, living here they have not been as bad but surely shockwaves federally. I cannot see Abbott lasting the term. I have always been a fan of Turnbull, but being close to centre means the far right don't want him so can't see him coming back. Bishop I see as the only contender. What do you think? 110.20.186.74 (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

One-term govts are rare, but when you have the perfect state-federal toxicity, you have to give it to the LNP, they really know how to throw it away. I hope Abbott remains leader and loses the election. Anything else is just shuffling deckchairs on the titanic. Timeshift (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing Seats

First of all, I have updated the SA House of Assembly Composition as a result of the Davenport by-election. Second of all, when is the right time to start adding a table of the changing seats from the QLD Election?

Thanks in Advance, DestinationAlan (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

First, you took away a vacant but didnt add a lib. Second, not yet. Timeshift (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Morrison revert

Is it 2007 again? :-) --Surturz (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WELL HELLO! Good to see you! Chin up, things'll get better soon when the Coalition lose office :) From your perspective, wanna know the sad thing? This was all so preventable. We said Abbott was a long way from PM material, and boy has that played out. At least Howard didn't provide false election promises and didn't have the worst personality in the world. You've got everything going against you. I'm really enjoying it. Did you enjoy my lulz on your talkpage? No expansion needed, pick an issue any issue! I hope Abbott remains as leader, it would be sad for his government not to get voted out. But I doubt the leadership will change after the song and dance they made of changing leaders... so much for Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015. Trapped and nowhere to go. At this rate, Abbott loyalists should HOPE for one-term Tony! Abbott unusually "apologised for all his "errors of the past"" after becoming leader in 2009. A leopard doesn't change their spots, just look at the record. At this point Abbott should literally be begging the entire country for forgiveness. It's the people who hire, and it's the people who fire. ELECTION NOW! Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Mate, take a breath, you're turning blue :-) Unfortunately for Abbott even if he survives the ballot on Tuesday, the leadership speculation won't go away. Abbott lost a lot of friends knighting Prince Phillip. He would have done better knighting Prince William or Princess Mary of Denmark --Surturz (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Once significant leadership speculation has occurred, the sitting leader is a sitting duck. At this rate, Abbott loyalists should HOPE for one-term Tony! The crows truly are coming home to roost. I want him gone at an election, though having another 1.5 years of Australia's most divisive PM ever... ugh. Timeshift (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So Surtzy, do you believe the issue is with the salesman or what he's selling, or both? and lol! Timeshift (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No comment :-) --Surturz (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course not :) Timeshift (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Four out of 10, or two-thirds of the backbench, voted against Abbott with no other candidate standing. lulz. I want him voted out at the next election but somehow I think he'll get dumped sooner unfortunately. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Abbott isn't out of the woods yet. By bringing the vote forward a day, he has to survive tomorrow's party meeting too - what happens if a significant number of ministers resign then? --Surturz (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Abbott was never seriously under threat and won't be for a while, if not at all. They've fallen in to a trap of believing changing of PMs, mid-term, destroys their chances at the next election. What is destroying their chances is toxic Abbott (not to mention their toxic policies) but they can't see it. I really hope Abbott leads the govt to the next election so they can lose in a massive landslide :) Timeshift (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Abbott saying Labor are being obstructionist - HAHAHAHAHA oh the irony! Who's the govt? Where does the buck stop? Suck it up Tone, suck it up. Such a contrarian. He can give it out in spades but he can't take it. Loving the polls lately. Are they the worst in Aus polling history for an incumbent govt? Timeshift (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"My question is to the Prime Minister. Given one-third of her parliamentary colleagues have expressed their lack of confidence in her, how can she continue as PM?" - Tony Abbott, Feb 27 2012. LOL! Timeshift (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright opinion

I'd like to lift some graphs from this series of PDFs (for example the most recent one: [3]. The copyright notice implies that the license is CC BY 3.0 AU. What do you think, can we use the graphs? --Surturz (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Timeshift (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ferny Grove

Good morning. The points I was mainly trying to address with this edit at Electoral district of Ferny Grove were that there were five candidates, not just three, and to provide a reference for the bankruptcy of Mark Taverner (which has potential to be a BLP issue). Your edit summary reverting my and several other edits included "results not final", despite me having referenced an Electoral Commission Queensland page that had DECLARED written in dark red in the middle of the page. I appreciate your rewording of the second paragraph. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Please feel free to improve on it. I essentially lifted the text below the table at Queensland_state_election,_2015#Seats_changing_hands so we had matching/non conflicting information. I love referencing the ever-reliable Antony. Timeshift (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On a lighter note...

Petition to get TISM to perform at Eurovision...link --Surturz (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision. Ugh. Lol. Timeshift (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

POV tag revert

I was in the middle of adding my reasons on the talk page when you reverted. Next time, please assume good faith and give me more than a minute to add talkpage justification of POV-tagging. --Surturz (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

SA lower house diagram

Hey, you deleted my diagram of the SA lower house and I was just wondering why, when I took the time to create it, thinking it would make the article look better. Given the "assume good faith" thing, I think calling my work "terrible" was quite harsh. So perhaps you could tell me how your destructive action could be classed as more productive than mine? As a new user I am still not too sure how this all works. Thanks :) Hshook (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As you may have noticed in the article's history tab], User:DestinationAlan has been uploading the preferred graph but needed adjusting. Can you please adjust the graph so it has only two rows rather than three? Three is too much for a finely balanced lower house of only 47. If you can adjust it to two rows i'll be happy. Thanks. And welcome. Timeshift (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading through the history page, it seems to me that for as much work as Destination Alan put into the diagram there was nastiness about the work. "they just look horrible" "still wrong" "terrible design" and to me, "terrible, pls take to talk page for consensus". I don't write this to inflame the situation but just to invite you to make changes you see necessary instead of writing things which could be taken to be nasty, or deleting the work of other people just because it doesn't fit your standards. I updated the diagram a while ago to fit in with other Australian parliamentary diagrams, and I like the way it is now, to me it suits the SA chamber as it actually contains three rows. Again, if you want to update the diagram in whatever way you want then go ahead, but please don't bite the newcomers or claim ownership of the article/diagram. Thanks for all your work on Wikipedia and I hope we can all work together to improve coverage of Australian politics in the future! Hshook (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Helen Westwood

Well, first of all she won't be last, she's just the last I've been able to find - all parties must have tickets of at least 15 in NSW, and the 9th position is actually winnable in a very good year (the Coalition won 10 last time!). Anyway, I found it in her valedictory speech, in which she says she was "kindly offered" the 9th position by her faction after losing the main preselection. Frickeg (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

So she's not resigning as her article says, but she's actually recontesting? Timeshift (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct. I have removed the bit in her article where it says she's retiring. Frickeg (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Timeshift (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Ferguson Left

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ferguson Left, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Leslie Drury

Okay I just moved to possibly living-is there any info that they are still alive? since there is only one link, no DOB and no info in over 30 years. Wgolf (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Minchin Protocol

Hello - hope this is an appropriate place to ask. I can't find info on the Minchin Protocol on wp, not even mentioned in or referenced from, Nick Minchin article. Would there be a reason? Thanks for any advice.--JennyOz 14:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennyOz (talk • contribs)

FAR

I have nominated South Australian state election, 2006 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

How they got a consensus for the minor parties in the infobox for the federal elections is beyond me...I tried to fix it and make it akin to the Canadian election ones but apparently it was too 'squished up'. But hey, I can't complain.

Looks like I'm getting back into American politics editing.

DestinationAlan (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

+1 Adding the minor parties to infoboxes is stupid. Please let me know any future attempts to get rid of them I'll be there to support. --Surturz (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Australian politicians

Well I am not familiar with this subject (or rather just not a expert) I will admit I have been getting the DOB's/DOD's from the refs-which some of them are missing so I am putting them as possibly living until we get more info! Wgolf (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No probs. Just remember when adding the DOB that the dash is the longer one – not the shorter - one. Timeshift (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Whitford

I think the ADB has mangled two different facts together there: he was Chief Secretary until the 1933 election (8 April), and resigned from the PLP to sit as Independent Labor sometime before the remerger of the Labor parties in 1934. He was definitely re-elected for the PLP on 8 April, so the date quoted (18 April) would, if correct, mean he quit the party literally ten days into a nine-year term!

Trove doesn't list anything remotely interesting for Whitford in April 1933 besides his re-election, so my assumption is that 18 April refers to the return of the writs, and they haven't done their homework about the party he ran with in 1933. I would love to know when he actually did quit the PLP though, because I'm a terrible pedant about dates and it annoys me that I haven't pinned it down. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that period of SA politics. But I suppose as long as nobody knows definitely otherwise, and we have only source about this and says ind from 1933, we should go with that. It would be surprising to quit a party 10 days in to a 9 year term but certainly plausible. Timeshift (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no press coverage from the time to support that, though. The ADB says "Backed by the Liberal Federation, he and like-minded colleagues held office as the Parliamentary Labor Party under L. L. Hill and R. S. Richards until 18 April 1933. Thereafter Whitford was an Independent Labor member, as well as a commercial traveller." That he held office as Chief Secretary until 18 April 1933 is unquestionably true, but there's no evidence to support resigning from the PLP on that date. It may be that "thereafter" didn't mean immediately thereafter. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. The wording IMHO definitely indicates immediately thereafter, which could be interpreted as shortly thereafter, but certainly not 8+ months thereafter. It's just too long-a time period for that sort of wording. Timeshift (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The only specific sources referring to Whitford as distancing himself from Labor come from a spate of media coverage in March 1934. Noticeably, that refers to Whitford as having been in Labor in the present tense, and announces that he was as of that time now an "individualist". I think that's a lot clearer than the ambiguous mention in the ADB, which if correct managed to be completely unreported (as opposed to the torrent of coverage of Whitford's March 1934 comments). The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bah. I hate 1930s SA state politics. I do despise that so infinitely little is published on this subject. It's not as if recorded history started in the 1940s. Timeshift (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by this period, but I suspect the bad media coverage is just because Labor blew itself apart so spectacularly. Like, I struggle to think of many times in Australian history when there have been four Labor Parties sitting in the same chamber, and it's a such a chaotic period that I think a lot of modern historians have just thrown up their hands and found it easier to just pretend everyone was always straight Labor.

It's interesting that I've had far more trouble tracing what happened to the PLP members in 1931, whereas the Nationals from 1917 and the Langites from 1931 are both subjects I could write a GA-length article with relative ease. It basically took Trove developing to its present depth of content for me to even work out who the heck went where in the OLP/PLP part of the 1931 split. The period newspaper sources are very clear that the PLP was an actual party; they just don't seem to be nearly as concerned with its inner workings as they were with either the Nationals or the Langites. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

But that's the thing, a lot of sources don't just pretend everyone is straight Labor. There are bios and articles around that do say such and such an MP was part of a splinter group, but lack more detail, even basic detail such as years. One source that did get very lazy but should be the last to do so, is the www.parliament.sa.gov.au former members section. And what's worse is for some MP affiliations they are completely wrong. The official source is a joke. It's disgraceful. Timeshift (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've still got so much to do with the SA electorate articles, it'll be a while before I get to the parties! Although, if MPs sat as members of those pre-Lib Union parties then it would be great to get some designations for that period in there. As you say above, no hope with the SA Parliament site, the most hopeless of all the state parliamentary websites when it comes to member biography (WA excepted, since it just doesn't try before about 1996). Frickeg (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm slowly working my way back through the member lists, and I am very carefully checking everything as I go along: I'm on the 1915-18 LA at the moment, but I'm going to keep working back until the 1890s so will hopefully be able to catch members of the pre-Lib Union parties. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering how fluid MP affiliations were with pre-Lib Union parties, I wish you luck but I don't expect a lot! A note for readers of this page, PS: National Defence League and Farmers and Producers Political Union articles finally created. Timeshift (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SA Electorate Results

Thanks. And yes, I plan on doing that, but I've got these NT election result books for only a limited time so NT 1990 and 1987 are my next priorities. But with that in mind, I'll move on with SA after that. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

SA Langites

The short version to this story is that Doug Bardolph was a bit of a Langite Clive Palmer, and basically everyone who got elected with him lost their desire to continue to work with him before very long. There were two other splinter parties: a short-lived one around Martin Collaton before he just rejoined Labor prior to the 1933 election, and a slightly longer-lived one after it which called itself (in at least the source I was looking at when I wrote that page) "SA Lang Labor Party" (as opposed to the original, which was just called the Lang Labor Party), which was also referred to by its members, Dale and Howard. I understand the confusion, though - it's not as if they were terribly creative with naming! So in that edit - the link is right, the piping is not.

The Collaton Langites are probably not independently notable of Collaton, and while I'll go over the sources again at some point whatever they called themselves (which I can't remember off the top of my head) should probably redirect to him. The Dale-Howard Langites I think are independently notable and are a future project. I'm particularly interested in SA stuff at the moment so it's fairly high on my list but it's also exam month so you probably won't see much from me in the next fortnight! The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them starting out there at least, though it needs to distinguish that they were indeed separate parties. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I just removed the "SA" from the 1933 election article - all we need is Lang Labor, piped to the state article. The main Lang Labor Party in SA wasn't a split from the NSW Langites, but "SA Lang Labor" is the name the Dale-Howard Langites were using when they split from the main LLP after the 1933 election - does that make sense? The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's correct to call Thompson "Protestant Labor", as most of the sources seem to refer to him with that label, and this article links him to the interstate mob, although a lot of the sources seem to otherwise treat him as an independent. It'd be nice to see our Protestant Labor Party article get a bit more solidly referenced than it is at present around what the various Protestant Labor people had to do with each other - A Pox On Both Your Houses is an amazingly crap source for something Jaensch put his name to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Early common names

Hey, one little thing I've picked up in your fixing things up here and there is that you seem to have a preference for "Firstname Lastname" naming of early politicians. I kinda feel responsible for this since I think I was one of the people who started that convention that back in the day, but the more widely-read I've gotten on pre-1930s politics the more I think it's often wrong for that era. I think we've got a lot of articles at "Firstname Lastname" when basically every source we could cite uses either "Firstname Middlename Lastname" or their initials and last name: in those cases, I don't think we're using their common name, and I think we're using a naming system that is kind of our own arbitrary invention. Thoughts? The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed either way. The reason I changed to John Duncan in the first place was because many articles linked to John James Duncan which redirects to a US politician. If you want to add middle names, by all means go ahead, but as far as i'm concerned as long as it links to the correct article, i'll use firstname lastname as the display name unless a number of editors tell me not to. It's easier. Timeshift (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Blah. Stopping there. Don't suppose you want to pick up where i left off? Best way to find out is type their name and "party names" with the " in to google and see what you find. Add to their bio article and in the MLC list. I have no doubt 1897 through 1915 has more affiliations i've missed and/or not available online. 1891 to 1897 still need doing. Timeshift (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm completely happy to pick up where you left off, and it's the top priority on my list (and I just deferred my exams so I basically have the rest of June to sit around and chill out on Wikipedia), but would you be able to include specific sources for the non-Labor affiliations you've listed pre-1910?

Every election after 1910 has party affiliation clearly listed in the newspapers alongside the election results, and so is really easy to do. Any election before that doesn't, and so clearly demonstrating that they actually were a member of a parliamentary party is going to be a bit of a cow. I am pedantic and thorough enough to go do this where possible, but it would be a godsend if you'd be able to post sources for the ones you've done so it can be checked off easily. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

At the time I added/ref'd party affiliation in every MP's article that I altered in the MP lists. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a problem I'd like your opinion on. I've gotten back to the 1910-12 parliament, and I'm damned if I know how to address the conservative party affiliations in that parliament prior to the Liberal Union merger in light of discovering that they ran with this mess of a semi-coalition. If they'd actually run a united ticket I was just going to list them as "Liberal" and footnote that they'd run a united "Liberal" ticket and it was an informal coalition until a few months after the election, but the LDU running independently in nearly a quarter of seats (and winning two) kinda buggers that up. @Frickeg:, any ideas either? The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

My preference here would be to list them all with their pre-1910 affiliation (if known) and then treat the Liberal Union as starting after the election - so people would be "LDU/Liberal", "Farmers/Liberal", etc. I imagine, for the joint candidates, it should be discoverable which of the three groups they represented first. It seems to me from that register article that they were jointly endorsing candidates for electorates, without those candidates necessarily being members of all three groups (a bit like the unionists often do in Northern Ireland today). Frickeg (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are two ways of going about it that I've seen people do on here. The first and the most accurate is to find the official gazettal or legislation back in a Government Gazette from the dawn of time and to try to map those lines on to some kind of modern geography. I've seen a few more dedicated editors do this and it is the best solution by far. But while the early 1900s didn't have Antony Green, they did have some coverage of where districts actually stood, and if you dig around Trove you can often get some idea: i.e. when I wrote electoral district of Bulla and Dalhousie I was able to at least name the key towns since neither "Bulla" or "Dalhousie" means anything to anyone in a modern context. In the case of South Australia, where the local party branches were meeting is probably the easiest way of getting a general vibe for the area covered, since those meetings were reported on in detail all the time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not impossible - could be in Trove (especially if you hit on the rough time that a reconstitution of districts happened), could be in the State Archives (probably would, if you could find it), or if you can find the exact boundary lines I'm sure some helpful soul on here with a penchant for mapping could sort you out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that you added the Labor designations to the MPs for the 1906-1910 list. My plan is to create the lists with vacant party columns all the way back to the last missing list in 1884 and then to go back and meticulously cross-check affiliations, because I kept finding useful sources for earlier parliaments while researching later ones and then not being able to find them again. I left the Labor ones off as well as the conservatives because, while they're probably accurate, I want to catch cases like Bill Denny's couple of terms as an Independent Liberal in this decade amidst decades of Labor service (which I would have completely missed if that dude hadn't written a featured article on him). So many of the 1890s Labor people nationally wound up leaving due to early splits that I want to be really diligent about making sure that every election is correct. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm very happy to let anyone do what they need to to ensure all articles are both complete and accurate. Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

SA Legislative Council

I'm really not sure if I can do that. All that data might be a bit too much (having to do 32 tables, 1 for each count), and I'm not sure of a way to simplify it. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Semaphore

Thanks for that catch. I was a bit mental with insomnia when I had that burst of activity last night and it doesn't surprise me that I slipped up somewhere! I've checked all the others and they're fine, thankfully. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

National Defence League

I'm kinda struggling to work out at what point the NDL actually became a party in the sense that we understand it now, like, actually having members of parliament, as opposed to being like an employers' version of say the Australian Christian Lobby and just issuing endorsements of candidates they like.

I found the newspaper's list of candidates for the 1896 election which had people as either "NDL", "Labor" or none, and was working off that. But their relationship to candidates seems pretty murky: Paddy Glynn won by-elections in 1895 and 1897, and was strongly supported by the NDL both times, but in 1895 and 1897 sources make statements like, in the latter, "it should be explained none of the candidates were the direct nominees of the National League". This contrasts with Labor, for who it is always pretty clear who was and wasn't formally a ULP candidate. This might seem like I'm getting a bit finicky, but by this time the ULP had already had its first split and started expelling people and I can't work out at what point the NDL actually started having MPs who were theirs in the same sense.

I feel like I can probably work out the FPPU and the LDU from poring over the papers, because both (and at least the latter) seem to have been parties as we would understand them from the start. But the NDL is confusing the shit out of me. Any ideas? The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

SA Pendulums

It usually takes about 2-3 hours for each election (I tend to multitask when doing wikipedia work), maybe just 1-2 hours if I'm focusing. Likely less pre-1970 when there's less seats. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

Hi Can you help me with Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon? google past stories The Advertiser written at news.google.com or go through the News Ltd newspaper archive at newstext.com.au You can buy credits and download articles for about $20. I don't have a credit card or the money. Paul Austin (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested in the subject nor will I ever pay for a news subscription. Timeshift (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Vaughan

What was your source for this addition? I don't see how Vaughan could have been the opposition leader after he lost the premiership in 1917: he was leading the government's junior coalition partner from outside Cabinet, even though he wasn't one of his party's ministers. It's either wrong or it's using a very interesting definition of "opposition leader". The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the source, a Crawford Vaughan served as the official opposition leader in 1917. The link to the source is at Leader of the Opposition (South Australia) however the URL needed updating which i've done. FYI I got up to Price. Timeshift (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. I wish they had exact dates for that. It'd make a lot more sense if it was just for a very brief period while they reconstituted as the junior instead of senior partner in the coalition; I'm struggling to think of an example anywhere where a formal Opposition Leader was in fact leading a formal coalition partner of the government including ministries. I suspect the first scenario is probably it because it has Kirkpatrick and Labor returning as the opposition in 1917, instead of from the 1918 election when the Nationals got smashed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Results pages

Well, I'll have a go. Just everything's a bit hectic this week with starting a new job. But if I have a spare hour or two tonight I'll see what I can do to get the 1968 pendulum up. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Electoral districts

Well done for your effort matching past and present electoral districts - that's super helpful! The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I was just looking at Albert and groaned again... there's more I know. It's hard to use keywords for Trove sometimes. I'm about done I think. Timeshift (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Danig Party of Australia

The article Danig Party of Australia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Coverage amounts purely to the fact that the group exists and provides no additional information at all

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hack (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

SA electoral districts

The reference I used for Sturt has polling booth level data for all elections until he randomly stops about 1920 sometime for reasons I'm not sure of. I'm not feeling up to adding all the data right now, but in the 1890s Gladstone was Port Pirie and surrounds and Newcastle was Port Augusta, Quorn and a bunch of little towns I haven't heard of. It's of no help with Young because he cuts out on the polling booth data before it was created. I'll put all the location data in at some point soon but you're welcome to do it in the meantime if you'd like. (This, by the way, was the polling data I was inquiring about on the WikiProject talk page a while back - not the first time I started working from a NLA hardcopy of something years ago and then discover years later they finally put it online.)

By the way - I'm leaning towards just using Jaensch's information about party affiliation from that file to fill in the gaps for 1890-1910 when I get the last of the member lists done. I'm more pedantic than Jaensch about the details and he's got some marked that I wouldn't have but I feel like it's basically accurate enough for Wikipedia purposes and it would save me a heck of a lot of hair-splitting about the NDL in particular.

Okay, before I finished responding I had a snap of curiosity and dug up polling place data for some of the regional electorates post-1938. Young basically amounts to "Snowtown and a bunch of places I've never heard of", and single-member Newcastle predictably loses Port Pirie, goes way outback instead, and amounts to "Oodnadatta, Marree and a bunch of places I've never heard of". The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Building on your curiosity, I did most of the "manual OCR" of the places in that article. Do we add lists of polling places to these articles? If so, I'm happy to make sure most of them get at least a stub article with an indication of location in them. I don't think I'm good enough to do historic tracks of what electorates any given town has been in and when. Many of the articles for even tiny places already exist (and I didn't do them all). --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I added the list to electoral district of Young (South Australia). Is this helpful enough that I should do it to the others in the list? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis:, I think it's definitely helpful. I don't think we need the subdivisions (which seem to just be administrative), and I could go either way on having every locality (some of which I'm not sure even still exist) but would be very happy with if you wanted to write those locality articles. I don't think it's useful to track which electorates each town was in, but I do think it's useful (and not very hard) to track the geographical evolution of each electorate pre-1954 - the source I used for the Sturt electorate has every booth up until about 1920 and Trove can fill in the blanks. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I had kept the subdivisions in as I guessed maybe that was the size of the electoral rolls - absentee votes required outside of the subdivision. I'm OK with them going away too. All of the places in Young exist as LOCB (bounded localities) in the state gazetteer (which is the standard usually applied for notability on Wikipedia for Australian places) except one contained in Kadina, one changed name in 1942 and one dropped an S sometime. Place articles tend to grow as they are found to have been home or birthplaces of footballers, politicians or along railway lines for example, and get linked from the district councils eventually too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Namesakes for Napier, Ramsay and West Torrens need articles. Namesake details can be found in the ECSA links at the bottom of the electorate articles. Also some namesakes are missing from some SA abolished electorate articles. If/while someone is at it, can they create South Australian Lang Labor Party, as opposed to the Lang Labor Party (South Australia), as can be seen in articles like Electoral district of Adelaide and Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1933–1938? Timeshift (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Danig Party of Australia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Danig Party of Australia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danig Party of Australia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hack (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Politicians

Are you going to do every redlinked member of the House of Assembly? I don't want to be all snarky but it'd be more useful to slow down and include what little information there is in the parliamentary bio pages so someone doesn't have to do another run just to add that (at which point they'd be a good basis for later expansion). The only real thing these two-liners are good for is eligibility in a future stub contest if someone wants some Amazon vouchers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm about done for now. No redlinks at Parliamentary Labor Party :D IMHO a stub is 10 times as better as a redlink - every reader has a direct link to their parliamentary biography. Every article started somewhere. There's no extra effort needed for the next editor who comes along and expands one or more of them. Hopefully however, it will encourage articles to be expanded sooner. Timeshift (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice. It would be amazing to get detailed articles on those people in particular - one of my projects still needs to be to go over the PLP era with a fine-toothed comb. I'm right across the Nationals and the Langites but I'm absolutely positive I missed people and changes regarding the PLP.

I'm not arguing about the utility of the stub-creation - Frickeg is mass-creating them in NSW too, but he's putting in the little information he's got at his disposal, and at least the full names and birth and death dates would be one less thing for future editors to have to follow up on. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Re Wallaroo: I just discovered when I found Jaensch's results file that Hooper was Labor from 1891, and was according to him the first Labor MHA, not McPherson. Haven't had a chance to check it against Trove but no reason to assume he's wrong. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hooper was an Independent Labor member. McPherson was the first actual Labor member. But i've updated as such. Timeshift (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not good with seat tables. Can someone please update Electoral district of Victoria and Albert to reflect Campbell as ANL 1906-1910 and Labor 1910-1912? Also, should we start adding to seat tables all the NDLs, ANLs, FPPUs and LDUs? House member lists all updated and complete. Timeshift (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you know anything about the colours these parties used? I'll need to create colour templates for them and it would be good to use the actual colours. Frickeg (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a strange feeling that something so simple will be very hard to find. I'd go generic and make NDL/ANL blue (con), FPPU green (rural) and LDU yellow (lib), sans FPPU like we have for the colour bar at Premier of South Australia. Timeshift (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds sensible enough. They're easy to change if we discover more concrete information. Frickeg (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad we're this far through the lower house, it's a pity though that the ref doesn't cover the upper house. Finding more party affiliations for them may be a bridge too far. Timeshift (talk)

Hmm. I made a start, but once we get to pre-1902 I'm really a bit hesitant. There seems to be a lot of coming and going between official NDL and unaffiliated as it's currently listed (Laurence O'Loughlin was the one who prompted this), and it would be good to get all this nailed down so that I only have to do one run-through. Basically we need to know when they stopped and started considering themselves as NDL. If this is too hard to pin down, it may be better not to list any party affiliations (apart from Labor) before 1902. I also assumed that, say, everyone listed in the 1905-06 list as FPPU joined when the FPPU was formed in 1904, but knowing this period it's probably more likely to have been in dribs and drabs. Before I go on with this, we really need the 1902-05 list updated to include the FPPU. Frickeg (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been using this source which clearly indicates election party affiliation or lack thereof. The good thing about that is i've been able to add many affiliations to the member lists, and as the members lists only go back to the last election, it's a perfect match. Seat articles require actual years, so yes, a bit harder. There are a couple of cases where an Independent Labor or Independent Liberal is labelled as Labor or Liberal, but that's how they seem to have been treated back then. Labor had two indies in its ranks in 1893 but the only results we have are Libs 23, Cons 21, ULP 10. I think it's fine to have them listed as such as long as the independence is discussed in the bio article, which it is. Good luck with finding the pre-1905 FPPUies! Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my stance on pre-1910 affiliations was basically "what Jaensch says, and if we can find something better that's great". I think it's of questionable utility to split too many hairs about the NDL - for instance, in the two by-elections that I've brought up before where the papers specifically reported the candidate the NDL were campaigning for was not their direct nominee, Jaensch just lists them as NDL. I don't think it's completely inaccurate to call them NDL candidates considering that the elections were basically straight-out NDL-Labor fights, even if it's technically dubious to call them NDL candidates/MPs. And that saves a loooot of effort on our part working out, as Frickeg put it, when they stopped and started considering themselves as NDL. The birth of the FPPU and LDU in between parliaments is a bit more of a challenge, but I think that's more resolvable out of Trove than the NDL, which is a headache at every level due to their more informal structure. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Question for anyone who might know... South Australian state election, 1905, Labor forced the incumbent govt to resign with the support of "eight liberals". However according to Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1905–1906 sourced from here, apart from Labor, ANU and FPPU, there were only seven MPs without an affiliation. How do you get eight liberals from when there's only seven non Labor/ANU/FPPU MPs? And I doubt unaffiliated Vaiben Solomon would be considered a liberal and/or back Labor to form govt. Timeshift (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the infobox in the 1905 election article, the results table in the same 1905 election article, and our member list for the 1905-06 parliament all have completely different parties contesting the election and seat counts resulting from that, which is awkward and kinda hilarious.

Secondly, the identity of who those people are is, um, interesting. This seems to be the list of MPs who backed Price to bring down the Butler government, the non-Labor people Burgoyne (FPPU), Coombe (Ind Lib), Cummins (ANL), Inkster (Ind Lib), William Miller (FPPU), Mitchell (Ind Lib?), O'Loughlin (FPPU), Peake (Ind Lib), Pflaum (ANL). I am so confused. Why did three of Butler's own MPs and two MPs from the ANL (!?!?) bring down Butler? The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the list! Have you seen how ECSA/Jaensch do their 1893 to 1906 results as opposed to UWA? Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I have been pretty emphatic about arguing that UWA is not any kind of a reliable source for this era because they oversimplify things and don't explain their working such that it's impossible to replicate how they came up with their figures and who they included. And we've been discussing the lesser shortcomings of Jaensch, but at least Jaensch tells us who he's included in what dataset so, as with the two examples from the other day, we can pick out when he's stuffed up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

So... are you saying we should change our 1893-1906 election article result tables? And then there's the issue where we've consensused on the LU being formed after the 1910 election but yet with Jaensch on the ECSA ref it specifically has September 1909 and treats them as such at the election... Timeshift (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I realistically don't think it's possible to definitively come up with party results tables when you can't define the parties. Jaensch's data is a bloody lot more accurate than UWA's, and we've found two errors in about three days of closely using it without even trying that blow out the reliability of his figures statewide. UWA's dataset involves making a rough guesstimate of who went where and then going "look, we have exact figures!" when they're really questionable. The case of 1905 is especially bad and amounts to just making shit up: franchise reform was a key issue at the election, but having an exact breakdown for two parties that weren't actually parties is just bizarre, in no way corresponds to the ANL/FPPU/IndLib division in MP numbers, and I have no idea who the third category is supposed to be. Jaensch still fucks up from time to time but at least has a serious crack at explaining what actually went down.

I would be a lot less opposed to using Jaensch's figures, but then we need to know about the cases where we know for a fact Jaensch to have screwed up: do we, ourselves, shift those votes to the correct column in the statewide vote, do we use data we know is wrong, or do we not use it at all?

As for the Liberal Union: they were in intense coalition talks and by September 1909 merger talks were well-advanced, but the claim that they actually merged is just Jaensch getting his history wrong again. They very clearly and in all sources went to the 1910 election as a three-party coalition in most seats under a shared "Liberal" banner, though they still ran opposing candidates in three seats, and formally merged in late 1910. Jaensch is a great political scientist and a great statistician but he's certainly not the best historian who ever lived. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

So we have to WP:IAR and do WP:OR to get it right? Are there any other apparent WP:RS? How about this... we include both results tables with some level of description to each? Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

More or less. You could try and find party figures from the time, but I suspect that might be challenging because the party system was still pretty amorphous (look at the list of MPs who brought Butler down!). I think Jaensch is probably the closest there is to a WP:RS that we're gonna get because he's probably had to make calls that would be clear WP:OR for us to do to come up with his data. I am not terribly fussed whether we don't use that data, use Jaensch's data knowing that it's slightly wrong, or fix it ourselves and footnote it.

Also, I realise looking at the UWA site for this conversation that they're citing the same book source that Kirsdarke01 is going back in his results pages: if it's the book authors and not UWA making shit up, this is going to be a broader problem/conversation pretty soon because he's covered so much he's getting back towards the 1920s.

I edit conflicted with your edit about including both results tables: I am adamantly opposed to including the UWA data because as far as I'm concerned it's basically a work of fiction. I think there are a few options of dealing with the Jaensch data alone and am okay with all of them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Answering your question from 1893: yes. I think it's extremely debatable to say that the NDL had 20 MPs as an actual party in 1893, but it's demonstrable fact that they endorsed candidates and who they endorsed, and reasonable to collate the amounts of votes those candidates collected. Talking about "Liberals" and "Conservatives" without explanation of the details was just shoddy research, and the necessity of having an "unidentified" category showed that they had no business pretending to have data that precise. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone good to keep going adding affiliations to seat articles? Electoral district of Victoria and Albert is one! I wish I was better at tabulation :( Timeshift (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Frickeg is probably the man to ask for those. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Frickeg ?

Also, I don't suppose anyone can find an image of Leader of the Opposition Robert Homburg? Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's on my list. :) (The affiliations; no idea on Homburg.) Frickeg (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I ask about Homburg as he's the only early Opp Leader i've not been able to upload a photo for. Timeshift (talk)

Meet Mr. Homburg. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SA results pendulums

Yes, I'll start on the 1950's pendulums after I finish work on the 1950 SA election, I'll begin with that tonight. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

NDL

I used the same source as for the House of Assembly (it was all in the one article/page) but clearly mangled the referencing somehow for the Legislative Council. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you see if you can chase it down? Timeshift (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's in the House of Assembly list, correctly referenced - I don't have time to sort it at the moment The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Federal results pages

I'm thinking I probably won't get a start on helping out with federal results until I've at least done all the state elections back to 1950. It's just I've seen them as lower priority because the results are already on wikipedia while the state ones are mostly absent from the internet. But after I've got everything done back that far I'll see if I can get federal result pages up too. Also yes, I've noticed that too for the pre-1968 pendulums. Interesting too, how seats like Barossa were unopposed for a while but they turned out to be totally winnable for Labor in the 60's. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont think its that easily explained. Funny the sort of areas that Labor needed to form govt, unthinkable today - Chaffey, Mt Gambier, Millicent, Wallaroo, Barossa, Unley, Glenelg. Wow. Timeshift (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

SA Elections

It turns out the reason for that is that Dean Jaensch's publication says the Labor vote was 166,517 and the UWA site says it was 166,106, and that the Communist vote is different by the same amount. I assumed that Jaensch's number is right, but maybe the total number should be counted manually for the right one. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I've counted the Communist vote manually and it comes out at 4,827, which is Jaensch's number, so that must be the correct one. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. A few other discrepancies i've come across too. I wonder if there's more to be found. Timeshift (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

SA parties

@The Drover's Wife:

I've done the early parties on the SA electorate pages - could the two of you have a look over them to make sure they line up with what you'd expect? I know nothing about this period so any errors or oversights on the members pages will have been carried through. There are a few inconsistencies there which I wasn't sure about - a lot of people seem to have been in the NDL but then not in the ANL? I treated that as true, but then there are significant differences between the affiliations in Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1906–1910 and the pre-fusion parties given in Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1910–1912, with movements between all three non-Labor parties in both directions. I have generally ignored these last (i.e. kept them with their 1906 affiliations). If this is in error or there are any other bits and pieces that need fixing up let me know! :) Frickeg (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up those infoboxes! I thought the bigger catch there was the Labor leader we missed altogether - to think we didn't even have an article on Edgar Dawes until your stub blitz a few weeks ago! The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, September 2015, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kevin Andrews and Non-binding opinion. 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) 11:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abbott Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Hastie. 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) 11:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Liberal & National Party Totals

Hi. Why is such an inadequate representation being used? The coalition agreement consists of the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Country Liberal Party and the Liberal National Party have no Coalition agreement with either party. Individual members choose (or are designated by state branches) to sit within certain party rooms and enjoy the rights of all other members. The impression of the Wikipedia articles under-represent the numbers and influence of both parties in the parliament. For example the numbers would imply that only 81 members could have voted in the last Liberal leadership ballot rather than the actual number of 102.. the number of Liberal MPs and Senators. The CLP in the Northern Territory is legally a division of the National Party, and the LNP (on the insistence of John Howard at its formation) is the legal Queensland division of the Liberal Party. They are the same party and as such have representation in the Federal Liberal Executive and in the Party Room. Given all of this it seems far more appropriate to cite the actual party room representation of the parties in the parliament as they define it and as the Parliament, which for example recognises Warren Truss as leader - and the benefits that gives, including how they are called by the Speaker in Opposition, and the Parliamentary website also refers to it so. Furthermore both party websites include the members of the LNP & CLP in their MPs. If it is possible that the leader of the Liberal or National Party not be a member as so defined by the current standard then it is clearly ridiculous. Furthermore why is this bizarre rule not similarly applied to the Labor Party and Country Labor? They are both different names used to elect members, including on ballots, which differentiate purely on location and branding, not the rights of MPs or their party as referenced by the Parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt1772 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We have tallied LIB, NAT, LNP and CLP separately for a long time. The LNP do run on a different party name, and get separate results/% after all. We count the LNP and CLP seperately as far as seat tallies go, which is a completely different and separate context to the Lib/Nat Coalition agreement. If you want to see if consensus can be changed please feel more than free to bring it up (once again) at somewhere like Talk:Liberal Party of Australia or perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Redistributions

Hi. I have some issues with your recent redistribution changes. To begin with I do not think they make it adequately clear that this is a draft proposal. The commission has frequently changed its mind entirely by the time the final decision comes down, and I think including all this information gives the incorrect impression that these changes are set in stone (not to mention the language - "set to", etc.). I don't really agree with anything in Paterson at all (I mean, what relevance does Throsby -> Whitlam have there?) and I very much disagree with separate headings for this. Also the retention of federation names is a guideline, not a requirement. Overall, while I think it's fair to mention the proposed changes on the pages for Hunter, Throsby and Charlton (not Paterson), I think it should be limited to a small paragraph (two sentences tops), probably in the lead.

On a related note, I've often thought we need a better way to deal with redistributions. I wonder if it's worth having dedicated articles on them? That way all this draft stuff will have a place even when it'll no longer be relevant on the main seat pages. Frickeg (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to amend as you see fit. I'm not sure there's enough sources and content to fill out an article. Timeshift (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Vic by-elections

Thanks, you're right, I have put the "not final" statement back in. I just spoke to VEC and Monday is the cut-off date for votes to be admitted for the count. I also remembered that the same thing happened with Gippsland South—they removed the references to the count being provisional and underway so I assumed it was final but they added 62 votes a week later. I don't think Antony will update his pages any further though, the ABC page for Gippsland South by-election did not update the results after the winner was declared. --Canley (talk)

Yeah i've found Antony to be less reliable of late when it comes to final figures. Btw, is it useful/relevant to say that VEC initially did a Lib/Nat 2CP? It's something that might be of interest immediately after the by-election but now we have distributed 2CPs, perhaps it should be removed? I just don't see a benefit to keeping the statement. Timeshift (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, fine to remove it. Antony also said that the figures were final on 18 March (which I think was why I assumed it was so). Can't blame him though because VEC don't say when the results are final, remove the update timestamp, stop updating the FTP feed, and declare the "result", but then add a batch of postals a week later. --Canley (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Leaders of the National Party of Australia

Template:Leaders of the National Party of Australia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Graham (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit to Andreas11213's talk page

Timeshift, this comment looks quite incivil. Would you consider removing or changing it? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Read his talkpage to see our history. I've been through situations like this 100 times with Andreas in the past but he never listens and always gets in to an edit war without realising he is consistently wrong which would tell him something, but he never listens or learns and doesn't care to, instead he is consistently defiant, ignorant, unwilling to listen and frankly intolerable. Timeshift (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)