Just thought I'd drop you a line to wish you well with your FA. I'm about to go through it all with an article I'm working on (one for a suburb in fact) and can imagine the sort of scrutiny it'll be getting. Orderinchaos7814:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take some advice I saw earlier on your page and call in the Adelaide cavalry to review it before putting it up for FAC. Your political userboxes look interesting - if you want to discuss that, though, I'd suggest email (I'm at gmail.com with this username). Orderinchaos7814:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and Melbourne rocks. I actually lived there briefly in my late teens :) My main reason for the edits was the infobox conversion project at WP:IAP but I was working on a political mapping project off-wiki at the same time, so it made sense to just edit all of them and use the information I was generating for both purposes. Orderinchaos7814:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Angus Redford.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk02:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timeshift, I started to read the process you went though to get this thing up to feature, I am blown away, even though it's become so late and I start work early tomorrow I just couldn't stop reading all that you had to do! congratulations for your endurance!!! I now see there's no way I'll get Palm Island up to Feature status though :( considering how harsh the process is. Congrats again, unbelievable WikiTownsvillian15:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou :-) It was quite an effort and quite time consuming to get the 2006 election up to Featured Article standard, but I got there in the end. In your opinion, what do you think of the Major Party Leader tables used for state and federal elections such as the one used in the Featured Article? Timeshift15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timeshift, thank you for asking but it is too late in the evening for me to have a logical opinion on the issue (or any other issue right now) will think about it and get back to you tomorrow evening. Although I will say this, as a Queenslander I wish we had a better pic of Beattie. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not in any detail, no. It was a twenty-member chamber, with wage and property requirements for suffrage. As far as I'm aware, the LCL held 16 seats out of 20 for much of its history, with the ALP making the jump to six somewhere in there. But specific results, as in vote percentages and numbers, I don't appear to have. Give me a moment and I'll check another book I have, though. michaeltalk13:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here goes.
1962 ALP 29,604 (2) LIB 54,506 (8) OTH 1356
1965 ALP 71,392 (2) LIB 59,488 (8) IND 7,502 OTH 2,714
1968 ALP 130,167 (2) LIB 103,479 (8) DLP 13,055
1973 ALP 234,744 (2) LIB 191,341 (8) IND 1,210 OTH 2,618
REFORM
1975 ALP 324,744 (6) LIB 191,341 (3) LM 129,110 (2) NP 14,640 IND 1,026 OTH 26,192
1979 ALP 290,552 (4) LIB 230,398 (6) DEM 47,527 (1) NP 7,716 IND 3,399 OTH 11,804
Half of the seats have always been elected each time. Until the 1975 reform, there was 20 single-member districts, under the same 2:1 Playmander malapportionment as the House of Assembly. After the reform, we have the upper house of today. The increase in members (from 20 to 22) was staggered, and the council is deliberately designed to be deadlocked (it was never intended to be filled with minor parties). Forgive me for the time, my eyes are failing and I need to clean my glasses. michaeltalk13:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jaensch, Dean (1986). The Flinders History of South Australia: Political History. Wakefield Press. pp. 495–498. ISBN0-9492-6852-5 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
Thanks for uploading Image:Ann Bressington.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Annette Hurley.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk23:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) It will be interesting to see what gets done next. If you haven't discovered them yet, have a peek through some of Roisterer's articles; they are very good. I'm not sure if I'll have another project ready before uni, but I look forward to what you may produce. michaeltalk00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given your side of the political fence, is there any critique you can offer on the Playford article? Specifically, could you tell me the areas in which you believe it lacks "meat". I need to form... a well-rounded history of the man. michaeltalk05:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot fritter the term around like confetti... it is mentioned in article after article, even in ones that have no direct relation to it. The Liberal and Country League article is small and tidy, and both changes you have made are "tacked on" and not in cohesion with the rest of the text. In a larger and more detailed article on the league there would be room for a paragraph or two describing in detail the terms of the merger and the demands of the Country Party.
I ask that the sentence be removed until I can write a comprehensive article on the party. I did so with the article on Playford himself. michaeltalk01:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on our chat last night - note the discussion on the page at Talk:Socialist Left - it appears I wasn't the only one with doubts about that article. The thing needs a complete rewrite, and most importantly, references. Orderinchaos7815:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found the constitution of the "Westralian Progress Party" at the Battye. Quite an odd mix - they seemed to see themselves as a libertarian party, although some of their principles seemed to be at conflict with this. They grew out of the "Workers' Party", which ran at the previous election in some seats, but are avowedly non-socialist. They were committed to holding another secession referendum and had some slightly crackpot economic ideas (including ultimately getting rid of all income taxes and some sort of social credit model), and even supported the elimination of laws against homosexuality (which existed right up until 1989). When I get time I might contact the people who founded it and see if I can get (GFDL-compatible) permission/authorisation to put their constitution on the Wikisource system and then write a half-decent article on them. Orderinchaos7823:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. As you may know, you have transcluded a userbox from the archive at my userspace (That's how I found you :p lol). I was just interested to see really how many of the userboxes in the archive were being used through the "what links here" page, and just happend to click on a link to your page.
I noticed that you have a userbox hard-coded on your page listing the number of FAs you have written. I must say that I really liked it, and I was wondering if it was a box you had written yourself or one that can be found elsewhere. If you wrote it yourself, I was wondering if you would mind if I included it in my archive (perhaps in a slightly altered form though for ease of use), or if you came upon it elsewhere, where I might find it? Many thanks and kind regards, Crimsone16:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your kind permission. I've converted your box to full code (and changed the border colour slightly - which I'm not yet happy with). I'll get on to adding input parameters soon. Thanks again, Crimsone03:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'm done for now. I've removed the identification of specific articles though because for some people the box may well grow to silly proportions for it. Crimsone05:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for alerting me to my broken SA election links, and for your kind words. I am indeed "keeping it up" (oo-er) and am currently very hard at work on my NSW election guide. I have just re-uploaded my entire SA election file - please let me know if there are still problems. William Bowe06:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I now realise that the problem was that the pages themselves contain broken links which need to be corrected. Er ... sorry, but I can't be stuffed! Perhaps one day. Thanks for calling my attention to the problem though. William Bowe06:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Sorry to keep deleting you from Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Like it says in a comment, the list is automatically generated from the by-year lists. When there's a January 2007 list you'll be included in the auto-generated version. I've updated the list a couple of times lately, essentially experimenting with a way to indicate former featured articles. I don't expect to update the list again until there's a complete set of FAs from January (which will include you). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in User:Audacity/Userboxes/WSPQ, which is a replacement for the old Political Chart userbox. The new userbox takes the two variables (economic and personal freedom), calculates which political alignment they place you into (Statist, Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative), and links your userpage to the appropriate category.
Michael - I agree with you 100%. But I don't need people like Adam Carr to discourage me from assisting you guys with Wikipedia. I don't need to be called a troll and a grub, just for asking a question and/or playing devil's advocate on Labor MP Michael Danby. Is it forbidden for me to inquire about Michael Danby being a former member of the Liberal Party. I was a former member of the Liberal Party, and I recall a former Liberal MP telling me that Danby was a Liberal before becoming Labor. I wanted to find out if this was true. I posed this question on Danby's discussion boards, and what do I get from Adam Carr that I'm a troll and a grub. I ask you Michael, is that a nice thing to say? I'll leave it at there. Open to questions. LibDeepThroat05:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to reason with this person, and I can't stand being insulted. That's not debating - that's bullying and namecalling and I don't retaliate that. If you want to have a clean debate without any namecalling and insults, thenI'm open to that. But he continues the status quo, then maybe he is just undemocratic. LibDeepThroat05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although this has been in use for other elections in other states, it has a couple of problems:
voters don't vote for premier candidates, they vote for local MPs
the personal particulars of premiers and opposition leaders do not speak to the elections process
the key elections process is the changing seats total between parties in the state's lower house
black text on a blue background (on the Liberal side) is poor design
there are more than two parties
I'd say that the table is too "American" in that it assumes a presidential-style contest, but American election articles lack this sort of thing. Of course, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise - that means less stuff to change on other elections pages. Let me know why you think the MPL approach is more encyclopaedic. Joestella13:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Your continued reverts, made despite receiving no support from other users at the article page or the WikiProject page, are a problem. Even if the other editors and I are wrong, Wikipedia can't be managed by self-appointed guardians. I have listed your violation of 3RR on the appropriate page. Joestella14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you contribute to these articles, just a heads-up that I have proposed renaming all of them in the form (Jurisdiction) general election, (year), "general election" being the correct term and "legislative election" being unheard-of in an Australian context. Let me know what you think: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politicsJoestella14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if the page names are changed. As for the 3RR rule, it takes two to tango (or in this case revert) to which I feel I am on the stronger footing. The Major Party Leader table is used for state and federal elections and has been for quite some time now. By placing a table of lower house stats, you're simply reproducing redundant data further down the page. I notice that you uploaded the picture of Debnam "something smells rotten" yet you feel you must take Iemma off the page. The MPL table is the standard used in WikiProject Australian Politics to clearly show the leaders of the major parties, whom are often crucial to deciding which party obtains government. I notice your Debnam picture has, at best, a pretty light fair use rationale, as opposed to the Iemma and Debnam rationales. There have been no direct wishes for them to be removed, aside from a few aesthetic comments, which I had also provided to you as a means of consensus a solution but this also does not rest with you. Aesthetics is no longer the issue, you simply do not believe that either realistic premier after the election or his contender should be featured. I am simply maintaining the status quo, rather than allowing a redundant table to be placed there instead which is simply pointless. Timeshift15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use Stills from TV commericals can be used under fair use, that's my understanding. I haven't raised a copyvio issue with regard to the premier and opposition leader photos, I assume they're OK.
Images It is not my aim to exclude the picture of Iemma (or Debnam), let alone any mention of them. The images, if they're OK to use, can go in the body of the article. The other details on the leaders can as well.
Redundancy Infoboxes are summaries. They should, by definition, always contain information contained elsewhere in the article.
Consensus Your position has received no support from other users. The consensus is this: the article subject is an election for parliamentary seats, the infobox summary will show parliamentary seats.
It appeared from nowhere, complete, from an unregistered user who contributed four edits. Are there any discussions about its relevance/design prior to my putting in my two cents? Joestella16:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What point are you trying to make? It's made it's way in to mainstream and is in the federal elections as well as the state elections with any substance and is only being objected to by you. Nobody is saying it should be removed apart from aesthetic comments which have been addressed. As it survived all that time not being reverted or complained about, for you to suddenly come along and remove it is no justification. Timeshift16:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous agreement does not preclude editing of Wikipedia. My changes cannot be reverted on the basis that they do not represent the "status quo". You are ignoring those who disagree with you. You say you do not "see anyone agreeing that the MPL tables should be removed". A number of users have made supportive comments.
Rocksong: I'm not a big fan of the red/blue infoboxes. They imply a presidential-style election.
JPD: I do feel it would be better to move to an infobox giving key facts about the election, which as Cyberjunkie says definitely include the results
CJ: I'm inclined to agree with Joestella that the appropriateness of the 'MPL boxes' is not certain ... I consequently would support a new infobox
ChampagneComedy: it isn't a presedential election at all
Flakeloaf: The four-party infobox is compact and clearly shows what's going on, whereas the two-party one does make things look like a strictly bipartisan contest
Athænara: the Legislative Assembly table gives a clearer focus on the process itself
Of course, some of these had caveats, newcomers to the debate should read the comments themselves in full. Crucially, no user has yet backed the MPL tables in their current form. Joestella16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those comments do not advise direct removal of the box alltogether, and those couple that do are not substantial support. Every current state election page has one, I am not going to allow the MPL box to be removed simply to leave the Debnam 'something is rotten' image there as that would be bias reporting, the longest I am willing to stretch is including both the lower house table (which is redundant anyway) and the more aesthetic revision] of the MPL box] - as both are quite small, it would only take around the size of what is currently there.(Take note that i'm providing solutions and compromising, you will not allow the MPL box in any form whatsoever when it is their popularity that most often decides an election as seen in opinion polls for preferred premier and 2pp) Timeshift17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a change from your previous summary: "Nobody is saying it should be removed apart from aesthetic comments". And yet you're still misrepresenting the progress of the debate.
Rocksong: Does not support the MPL table, supports an image at the top of the page
JPD: does not support "minimally relevant" info in MPL table, infobox should include election results
CJ: "would support a new infobox along the lines of the one proposed"
ChampagneComedy: actually edited the page to include a revised version of the seats table
Flakeloaf: supports the seats table, supports the MPL table only if changes are made to it
Athænara: prefers the seats table
Scott Davis: did not express a preference
That's no support for the MPL table in its current form. Plenty of support for the new seats table. And no opposition to change (apart from you). Joestella17:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we could reach a compromise on this. I do recognise the enormous amount of work you've done on elections pages. No hard feelings? Joestella18:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Sandra Kanck.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bob16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following the debate a bit, but didn't see any need to interject. Since you've asked, my opinion is that the MPL boxes give the incorrect impression that people are selecting a premier. They are not. Constitutionally speaking, they are selecting their local member of parliament; by convention, many of them are voting for a political party. I'm not aware that most or even many voters consider their vote to be a vote for a preferred premier. A few years ago I voted for Carmen Lawrence in my local federal division, even though I absolutely couldn't stand the idea of Mark Latham for PM. To characterise my vote as a vote for Latham would be both false and constitutionally naive. Hesperian03:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone into some detail with suggestions for standards in Australian politics articles. Of particular interest to you might be the idea of creating "general election campaign" articles separate to "general election" articles for elections where we have access to detail such as campaign ephemera and opinion polling. The campaign articles would be a more natural home for an infobox more like the MPL box we argued about the other day. In some form. And certainly without such huge slabs of colour. :) These could include, for credible premier/chief minister/prime minister candidates:
name and photo
party name
leader since
slogan
party's time in office or party's time out of office
most recent 2PP and job-approval poll standings
seat target (for oppositions and minority governments)
number of marginal seats held
number of marginal seats available (since some of their opponents' marginals may be vulnerable to third parties)
haha, talk about delayed response :) yes it was on lateline, a couple of minutes after you posted it to Wikipedia, although Tony might have gotten the info off Sky news like yourself, but i'd like to think it was you :-D WikiTownsvillian05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a gentle reminder that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and that this article cannot be allowed to become a daily chronicle of everything that happens. We have Wikinews for that. I am going to try to develop some guidelines for this article for election year. Adam13:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The LCL became the LPA in 1975. And the LM? If I get all my resources in order, I will work towards a FA. (It only sparked my attention when I was researching about the Democrats' origins) I've noticed a few edits around, such as this one which seem to be a reaction to newer information on the Liberals factional battles. In that particular case, Tonkin did heal wounds successfully—-if only for a few years. Give me a while to get some referenced articles up so a balanced view of it all can be found! As usual, thank you for your kind comments, and best of luck with whatever your new project may be. michaeltalk22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the photo is quite amusing given it's Dunstan, but I don't think it'll qualify for fair use. The two links are great and are very suitable. michaeltalk08:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try and place the image somewhere in the article, it'll probably fit best as a replacement. Regards 1975, the results are correct now. They're from p. 498 of Flinders History. michaeltalk09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply a list of all LC results since 1888. I'll scan the page in the next few days if you're skeptical. Now, I'm off to the Elephant, have a good night! michaeltalk09:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Dunstan1997b.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment at AfD and agree with you. There are too many people who don't contribute but thrive on judging at AfD. It got me invloved in AfD and also in trying to fix the guidelines. If you're interested let's talk. --Kevin Murray19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you have created so many of the opinion poll tables, I'm sort of assuming you created the Newspoll table on the New South Wales 2007 Election Campaign Page? If not, then ignore this message. If so, there seems to be a few typos with the dates (and it can also be updated tomorrow with new results).
Thanks.Recurring dreams07:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the Liberals continue to self-explode. I honestly think Rann will become the second longest serving SA Premier. Not that I want him to, but he's very capable and the Libs are far from being so.
Many thanks for your defence of me in the skirmish back there... it's very heartening to actually have someone stick up for me. Again, thanks. If there's ever an Adelaide meetup I'll be buying you a beer. michaeltalk09:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could give me any comments or suggestions on the article's talk page? She's nearing and is close to completion, and your input would be valued. michaeltalk22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was it the 1975 election article you wanted me to take a peek at? If so, the recommendation I would give would be to tone down the "glorification of Gough" (quite the secular saint to his team). I've seen Adam come across this kind of work before and comment in such a way. Concentrate on the facts regarding the election itself, and the precursors to it, rather than unveiling Whitlam's reform agenda. Give it a few sentences, or a paragraph, but readers can always just click on the Gough Whitlam link and read all about the changes he made. If I have time I might touch up a bit here and there.
As for the LM, I will try and add some more to it regarding the personalities. This is contrary to what I like (I consider such concentration on feelings, emotions, personalities etc to be the work of tabloids, or nonobjective books—not an encyclopedia); I'd much rather stick to raw facts. michaeltalk05:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! Thanks for your appreciative comments. I've been on and off lately because of finishing Year 12 and entering uni this year - it's been crazy! Regarding your question, Chris Watson only served during 27 April – 18 August 1904; this is barely several months. The timeline is automatically scaled to have proportional lengths of colour to reflect the terms served. You'll also find that Arthur Fadden, who was Country Party PM also for several months, doesn't have his colour beside him either. Hopefully we'll see a new addition to this timeline by the end of the year: Kevin Rudd 2007- ;) Enjoy yourself in Adelaide! All the best, Brisvegas06:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The work you've done on Australian elections is rather impressive - well done![reply]
McEwen's stripe is visible because he lasted in the job for over a year, in contrast to the other two. So yep, not much can be done about it. Politics is indeed a rather awful yet fascinating phenomenon - I guess we'll just have to wait and see about the 2007 poll - a few months is a political eternity. Enjoy your weekend! Brisvegas06:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I, in turn, was perhaps a bit trigger-happy on the [citation needed] tags, since you were probably still working on the articles. I'm still not convinced that australianpolitics.com is correct about the motives for the 84 and 87 elections, but for the purposes of WP you should trust him ahead of me, especially since I'm relying on my memory alone. And I certainly don't detect any bias in your edits, at least not intentional bias. Rocksong12:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intending to source these later, there's a lot of interesting stuff that is verifiable but the online sources don't touch on. Re pictures btw - great stuff :) Janine is IMHO one of the few Democrats who came out unblemished in the historical record (alongside Don Chipp). Orderinchaos7808:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The worst thing about pointless revert wars is the article stays in stasis as those defending an article from real or perceived attacks end up reverting to the stable version, and are not able to significantly improve it until the matter is settled. I've seen it time and time again. Orderinchaos7809:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Michael Armitage.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. mattbr3020:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this tidbit down the bottom, apologies for the late reply. I am sorry to disappoint you on this, but I am in favour of removing the leader box and having the results table in all election articles. Both are relatively redundant as the information will no doubt be repeated in detail later, but having the results table fits in well with an introduction. It more or less tells you the results instantly, which is what the election is all about, not the leaders. michaeltalk01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on The Mars Bar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:The Mars Bar. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. The issue at hand is that the article, in my opinion, does not contain information regarding the subject's notability. It is not being nominated because I am "homophobic" nor am I biased toward the article you created in any way. I must ask that you refrain from making personal attacks and accusations. Nick—Contact/Contribs07:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't dare patronise me with such words as "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia". I also did not call anyone homophobic. Timeshift07:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For gods freaking sake man, calm down!! :| this is so not worth fighting over... take a deep breath and a day off and come back and you'll probably see that too... *hugs* ill be on msn... DanielT507:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly fits under the categories of 'LGBT nightclubs' and 'Nightclubs in Australia' and is noteworthy as it's the only gay club in Adelaide. But obviously not good enough for admins, then I get stuck in to about calling people homophobic (even though I actually didnt) and then to top it off i get patronised like some bloody wikipedia newbie with "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia". I find that quite frankly offensive. Timeshift08:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your exact words were "Perhaps the person who wants it deleted is homophobic?" and that warning is like what everyone gets, did u read the bottom of it, it says "uw-npa1", which is here, he didnt even write the text in it. Just ... calm ... down... its cool. DanielT508:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a question. Not a statement. If I say "perhaps you broke in to the store?" as opposed to "you broke in to the store", one is a question, the other is libel. Timeshift08:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute over the AfD has been resolved without my intervention, thankfully there are wikipedia admins who still have some sense. Timeshift13:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your reply at Michael's talk page. I would second the advice in the section above - just chill out. I've had stupid comments aimed at me too. Just chill out and move on. Having said that, the occasional break from WP isn't such a bad thing for us all. Rocksong10:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please help more - your assistance is sorely needed. Come and help another project if you don't like the politics one. JRG11:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read a comment you made to another user and now I understand the problem. I was involved in an editing battle with Joestella over at the transport pages - he wanted to change a lot of stuff, merge a lot of stuff and delete a lot of stuff. Some was good, but most was very radical and very abrupt. My advice is to let him go for a while and then come back and edit again - he gave up on the transport issues eventually when he got bored. JRG11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel like that - but I can understand why. Have a good break and I hope we all see you back soon. JRG12:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have added results to the 1901,1903,and 1906 federal election articles which contradic my results that are still in the same article. I have started a discussion on the 1903 page, post any replys their. Thanks Aussie King Pin09:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you dont want to talk then just say so. I really have no time for this "don't call me, I'll call you" business. and sorry this isn't emailed but your email doesnt work (?) DanielT512:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:150px-Ac.peacock.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:AusPolGraph.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:AusPolGraph.PNG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. My road is a sweet piece of shit that (in my humble and parochial opinion) needs widening, bike lanes and an increase in the speed limit. Over the years, while cars fly into the creek and cyclists are killed, the only thing the council and government (lab + lib) have done is add shitty shoulders here and there and reduce the speed limit.
This seems an absolutely pathetic issue for the Liberals to be concentrating on, and if this is their best, they 'deserve' to be in their position. I think it's a joke, so I just put the petition in the bin. michaeltalk12:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the voters have wanted Labor all along, but just didn't like Beazley. Either way, its a massive change from the larrikin Hawke to the nerdy Rudd when it comes to all the Labor leaders. The thing is that swings like this don't happen unless a government is failing terribly (often with an economy in meltdown, big scandals, etc), which, whatever their flaws, The Libs don't seem to be doing. So it's quite strange to look at the poll figures.
Maybe your side of the political fence is going to "get lucky" this time federally?
As for the state, the Libs are screwed until they get new blood in. Barring anything drastic, there will probably be a slight swing against Labor come next election (ala NSW, Qld and Vic) but Rann is solid. michaeltalk12:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, whatever disagreements on the scale of the scandals, we can agree on how strange the polls are. As for your uncle, he must have been a 'wet', I guess? Shows how much the Lib voter has varied over the years. Whatever gains they've made in the 'outer suburban middle class', digging into Labor territory, the Libs have left wide open the possibility of a Libertarian party making big leaps if it gained prominence. michaeltalk12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the labels whatsoever, as they are very inaccurate. Me? I don't know. I'm all over the place, on so many different issues, but am thoroughly disgusted at all the 'token' things that gain prominence and that all the lines seem to be drawn over. Often these types of things (those in political userboxes, for example), all the silly little positions on all the silly little issues, matter so little. michaeltalk13:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am now free but in no state to talk much... I have something of the headache from hell and getting home hasn't fixed it - will probably be going to bed quite early tonight. Orderinchaos08:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, on and off. I've actually got quite a lot done this evening - still *plenty* more to do, but stress and weather not helping. Orderinchaos14:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:GoughWhitlam1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr17:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Gough Whitlam.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr17:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was sad to see Jeendan go. I find it hard to get worked up over your "wikibreak" though. Don't come back until you've learned to stop being so precious. Joestella20:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Hyphenated-Smith will not win an election. All that needs to be seen is this image. michaeltalk 09:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I do hope your break did you a world of good, was wiki-worried for a wiki-moment there. michaeltalk09:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that he will be going, but I understand how you could be offended and taken aback by his conduct. It would be fairly easy (I think) to work out a nice solution and revision of the article and bring this to an end, though. I'm quite happy to help, although I'm feeling rather uninspired at the moment. Best wishes. michaeltalk09:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:DunstanIn1973.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Dunstan1997a.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}