User talk:Timeshift9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive One (Apr06-Dec06) Archive Two (Jan07-Apr07) Archive Three (Apr07-Sep07) Archive Four (Sep07-Dec07) Archive Five (Dec07-) (feel free to add/edit your own comments)

[edit] Division of Melbourne

Yes, it is possible, but I'm really not sure it's a good idea. The fact is that the Greens beat the Liberals to two-party-preferred. I know that the information is available, but it's also available for New England and other independent seats and we acknowledge that the independent, not the major party, made the cut. We're not thinking of putting a winner versus Greens preference count in are we? I think it's probably best to leave it as it is, reinforcing the unusual nature of the result. The other result could be noted in the article text, I think. Frickeg (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Careful

aw - now come on [1]. If you think you are being baited, then don't take the bait. Let the content arguments stand on their own merits - and not about editors. Such comments though, won't help now or the next time. (in this case I tend to agree with your side of the debate). kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it's past that. The debate moves nowhere, and it's such a stupid debate, it's a given that Howard as the only living former PM not to attend is noteworthy. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But, just to reiterate (sorry), I was just butting in uninvited and suggesting a little more care with how we all express this. :-) regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CLP colour

The reason I changed the CLP colour is because, at the moment, it's the same as the United Australia Party colour, and I thought it was probably better that it was the same as the Liberals rather than the UAP. Frickeg (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. How about dark blue? Frickeg (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I can tell pretty clearly the difference, but I don't see any harm in swapping them. Frickeg (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Prime Ministers of Australia

Hi. Thanks for the alert about the above. I've removed the flag -- is that sufficient? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the other formatting was to handle this. I guess what you're saying is that I need to apply the same formatting to the other templates combined at the bottom of e.g. Kevin Rudd? If so, I'll happily do so. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

...Okay, I hope all now fine. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Wood

Sorry, forgot to check for incoming links to the misspelled redirect -- fixed now. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1943 election

Hi - this election page lists an independent, Malinda Angelina Ivey, as being a member of the House of Reps. I can't find her anywhere in the seats, except as an independent in West Sydney who polled 1.9%. Are you sure this is right? Frickeg (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've been wondering that for a while. Of course, I wasn't questioning your reliability; the source would indeed be fascinating! Frickeg (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

From the planet spliff! Showing me edits from last october in wikipedia is like real life meeting up with people from 35 years ago :| - my editing apttern is chaos theory unleashed - i am increasingly finding australian arts that are left hanging with oddities from up to a year before - (and not just my own edits :| ) - i would think that there is a mathematical formula involved in relationships between low edit arts and the hits/views they get - but thats not my scene - cheers Satu Suro 15:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsing templates

Hi again. I haven't touched {{Australian elections}} so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do..? Any modifications to the state parameters in those templates I've passed by would only've been to <includeonly> those set to collapse so they'd be visible on their own pages, i.e. no change to their behavior on article pages. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
PS The superscripts in {{Australian elections}} look miniscule here, so I'm tempted to amend them and also replace the vertical-lines with the more discreet dot-dividers and place the flag icons on the lefthand side of the headings (since English read from left to right). What do you think?

[edit] Kirby

I got the photo off Flickr. Kirby is about the only judge we would ever be able to get a free photo for. For the others I will be very annoyed if someone tried to delete their picture because it is all but impossible to get one of them. JRG (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift - I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting on this deletion discussion for the photo of Justice Hayne on the High Court— deletion of this photo will mean that all photos of judges in Australia except those where the photo is in public domain (which means every judge since the 1950s/60s, essentially) will have to be deleted, except for Spigelman's picture which was provided by a family friend. I don't think some users understand that it is practically impossible to get a photo of an Australian judge. Feel free to let others know and get them to comment too. JRG (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

This comment is unlikely to foster a spirit of collaboration. Please cease making comments intended to disparage other editors. Because of the recent history of incivility at Talk:John Howard, you will be blocked if you continue making such remarks. CIreland (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As it was my last comment on the matter per what I said, that won't be a problem :) Timeshift (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Beazley

Can't believe Beazley's Rove gaffe wasn't in the article. Is now. I haven't searched through the history to see if it was once there in the past, and someone objected to it, which is often the case these days :) Lester 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

also, Timeshift, you may like to check the article on Jeff Egan. Cheers, Lester 05:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist

Not sure whats going on, I have an occasional edit not show in the watchlist but dont think an articles have actually dropped off altogether. Are you using any gadgets like popups where its possible to unwatch by accident Gnan garra 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing content

Hi Timeshift. I see your comment on the John Howard discussion page, that deletion is OK when content is in dispute. Is there really a Wikipedia rule about that? When the content is vandalism or libel it would be a different matter. But when nobody disputes the factuality of the content, they just dispute whether they like it or not, is that a case for reversion? Cheers, Lester 07:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, maybe I read your comment to mean the opposite of what you intended. I'll go back and read it again. Regards, Lester 07:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guiseppe Iemma

Hi. The reference for Guiseppe Iemma's political views identifies him as a communist (paragraph 12) and later refers to his Marxist principles (paragraph 16). I've restored it as it is clear reference in a reliable source for a comparatively uncontroversial fact. Your views would be appreciated. Euryalus (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Observed

I refer you to your response to me in this page

You don't need to be convinced. You've been thoroughly observed. Timeshift (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by that, exactly? --Surturz (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Howard bias

It is fairly clear from your edit history that you miss no opportunity to insert quotes critical of John Howard. This is fine, I honestly have no problem with it. But be aware that now he is out of office, you are actually helping cement his name in the history books. If your intention is to hurt the man, then your best course of action is to assist him slide into obscurity, by refraining from inserting material about him. --Surturz (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear from my edit history. My edits show balanced contributions. Latest example - Talk:Gippsland by-election, 2008. Unlike you who admits to actively POV-pushing, and is obvious by your contributions. Timeshift (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation: John Howard

Hello. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, Lester 01:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Rejecting an RfM before it even begins demonstrates your unwillingness to compromise and reach a solution that is acceptable to the wikipedia community. Be it on your head. Timeshift (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it shows an unwillingness to be involved in pointless bureaucracy. I'd rather edit articles. --Surturz (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Careful....

You should read WP:3RR, cause you are very close to violating it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Hockey

Thanks for the heads up about the discussion on the suitability of the spoof note. However I can't find any trace of this. Can you give me a precise link? Anyway what's the problem... it's a good if not flattering likeness Albatross2147 (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Walsh

You're really stretching my memory on this. Since it was written way back when a list of references was a luxury I didn't bother listing them but I seem to recall using the ADB, as well as Don Dunstan's autobiography Felicia, as well as the Playford to Dunstan book and a few other general SA politics books. I have on my long term to do list the job of adding references to all my old articles but I have a couple of articles I want to get to FA status first. --Roisterer (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bizarrely I had just downloaded an image of Kilpatrick from pictureaustralia and added it to the Kilpatrick page only to find an edit conflict. What are the odds, hey? FYI, I have just also downloaded an image of Hugh de Largie in readiness for adding an article of him, in case he's next on your list too. --Roisterer (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Andrew Evans

Can you assist? I am from his office in Parliament and am trying to upload a profile picture to his profile page (Andrew Evans (pastor)). However as a new user (not intending to edit elsewhere) with no intention of editing 10 articles, I am blocked from adding the picture properly. AndrewEvans (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Timeshift (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Sorry about the second warning. I should have checked the talk page history, and then I would have seen that you had already been warned. Carcharoth (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urban slang

"sooky la-la" - thanks! I learnt something today. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

In light of your refusal to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and your uncivil response to warnings on the subject, I have blocked you for twenty-four hours. To contest the block, you may place {{unblock|your reason here}} on your talk page. Diffs: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Very watery diffs. You're all sad sad people who need a life. Timeshift (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Opps, seems like you strayed outside of the protective realm of Aust. Politics :-) Shot info (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the last time I defend Betacommand. I acknowledge and remove the warning placed on my talk page, and contribute no further to anything at all, but then I kept getting bugged on my page and not left alone. This place is filled with *gasp* sooky la-la's. Timeshift (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Timeshift, is that you "acknowledge" the warnings about incivility with another incivil remark. That isn't much of an acknowledgment, is it? If you left the warning in situ, at least for a while, then you wouldn't continue to get bugged because other admins would know you had already been warned. By the way, how far are you planning to push it? Because if you continue to respond in the vein above, you are very likely to have the blocked extended. Rockpocket 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a tip. Leave me alone, as I have that right, and I won't be responding. Timeshift (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, you could apologize for the original comment on beta's talk page, ask for an unblock, and forget this whole silly escalation ever took place. We're all colleagues here, let's not get bent out of shape and resort to blocking as a method of behavioral modification. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the comment from the page. If you read the comment, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, thus no apology is warranted. And it's a 24 hour block, i'm happy to let it stick as it makes others look petty. Timeshift (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Understood. And here is a tip in return: treat others with a little more respect, and they will be only too happy to observe your wishes. Rockpocket 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if those "others" stopped fightings others battles, there wouldn't be any need. Timeshift (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with someone, address it in a constructive manner. Calling someone an "idiot" or a "sooky la-la" is not constructive and therefore there is no "need" to do so. Rockpocket 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the comment, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. But keep ensuring excellent contributors get blocked, as wikipedia is already in the process of digging it's own grave. Timeshift (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) I did read the comments:

I've blocked you [Betacommand] and Locke Cole for 24 hours for edit-warring on WP:BOTS. — Werdna talk 06:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I always lol when idiots block Betacommand. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you really didn't mean to direct that at anyone in particular, you have a very unfortunate way with words. If you wish to be considered an excellent contributor, you might want to work on that. Rockpocket 00:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because Betacommand is always getting blocked, half the time by accident and half the time for silly reasons. I was referring to the collective, not the individual. I don't need your or anyone else's opinion to know I provide quality and quantity contributions. Now respect my wishes and be gone from my talk page. Timeshift (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift9's use of the plural "idiots" would imply it was not aimed at anyone in particular. If he had said "I always lol when power-mad idiots like you block Betacommand." then perhaps a case could be made against him --Surturz (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was imprudent to block Timeshift9 for that comment. Simply deleting (and then ignoring) his unfortunate words would have been a better course of action. Punishment should fit the crime. Excessive punishment for minor infractions is not helpful. --Surturz (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother. As I said, it's a 24 hour block, i'm happy to let it stick as it makes others look petty. Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the other incivil comments were not aimed at anyone in particular either? Despite, like the one above, being an unsolicited response to a specific comment. Also one can't simply delete unfortunate words when they are in edit summaries, I'm afraid. If your response to entirely valid concerns by administrators is to ignore the cause of the block and instead just wait it out, I expect you will find yourself having longer to wait next time. Rockpocket 04:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I will re-state yet again. I do not wish to be contacted by you Rockpocket. I have that right to request as such. Now respect that request. Timeshift (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked Timeshift. What the hell happened here? Removing warnings from your talk page is not a blocking offense, and re-adding them after they've been removed is merely provocative. Rebecca (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Read from the start. My message on BC's talk page (which I removed) and the edit summaries when I removed warnings from my talk page. Apparently sooky la-la's is a blockable offense. Again, I really didn't mind if the block stayed, as observers like you come along and notice the triviality of it. Timeshift (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Woot, ozzies stick together :-) Shot info (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Timeshift (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Premiership of John Howard

Hi - I didn't quite understand your comment at the talk page where you said And this is why this page gets deleted. Because people create it filled with nothing and seems redundant.. We are discussing adding to the article at Talk:John Howard#Howard Government (working title). I disagree that it is filled with nothing - it obviously needs more content but is a work in progress - a legitimate place to be. --Matilda ^talk 01:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah yeah - just let me get there slowly - I am not actually disagreeing - by bringing up Dame Joan I am coming around! --Matilda ^talk 07:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2PP

Electorates that were not Labor vs. Coalition were: Melbourne (ALP vs. Greens), New England (Tony Windsor vs. Nationals), Kennedy (Bob Katter vs. Labor). I'm sure these are the only three; others came close, but not close enough. In 2004 they were Calare (Peter Andren vs Liberal), New England, Kennedy, and Mayo (Liberal vs. Brian Deegan). Frickeg (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] too many refs

You can indeed have too many refs. You need only one reliable source to say he was nominated for Time's most influential. There are over 100 refs for a man only 6 months into prime ministership. The article is suffering from over referencing. Itis also suffering from overlinking in the referencing (as is the John Howard article). The Sydney Morning Herald for example needs only one link. Linking dates in the refs leads to a sea of blue and it becomes unreadable. see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context

Note I also plan to choose one only of refs 5-8 to support that he studied and has a Chinese name. I will be persuaded if you can show me the guideline (or better the policy) that more than one reliable source is required to support a non-controversial assertion - note I am referring to non-controversial facts.--Matilda ^talk 04:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read also Wikipedia:Citing sources - attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged ... excessive attribution is not required and I do not believe the material on Time or his learning of Chinese and his name is going to be challenged. Too many links mean that more than one is not relevant to the context. I will seek third opinions at WP:AWNB - or you can raise it there if you chose to --Matilda ^talk 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- As it is a matter of general principle and not specific to Rudd - I think AWNB is better--Matilda ^talk 04:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  - I will cross ref the discussion--Matilda ^talk 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bragg

All because of our absolutely loopy electoral laws (courtesy of Bannon, might I add). We need Hare-Clark, multi-member constituencies, named after their major geographical region... i.e. a three member Adelaide Hills electorate, four member Elizabeth electorate, one member Adelaide City electorate, one member Eyre Peninsula electorate, etc.

The people of Summertown (which I think is now in Bragg) have little geographically in common with the fine residents of Beaumont.

And what was it you wanted me to specifically look at on Playmander by the way?

Regards, Michael ^talk 02:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although multi-member works better with a minimum of 5 and preferably 6 - this may require growing the parliament a little (I've often advocated such strategies for my home state of Western Australia). In cases such as outer rural areas, single-member works better as there's pretty much no other way to ensure adequate representation. Orderinchaos 09:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

From my end, less members = less government. I like small parliaments. But I am sure many young ambitious politicos would rather larger ones so they can potentially enjoy their parliamentary pay, staffers, and pension. As for the Playmander, I thought it was explained that the weighting and such was all done to placate the country part of the (to be) LCL. It was all them, and it was instituted under Butler. That is in the article, yes? Regards, Michael ^talk 10:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Six members, what is this, the senate? The major parties would never agree to that for obvious reasons. FYI SA had preferential 1, 2 and 3 member electorates prior to 1936, with 46 members total. Obviously today due to population increases it would need to be a bit higher. Also the SEO cite I gave earlier regarding the 2007 redistributions talks about the need for multi member. Timeshift (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's buried in the document, the only ref I can find in there is the Electoral Reform Society's submission - they have PR as a core principle and it appears the SEO are merely reporting what they submitted. As for more - yes, the major parties wouldn't like it for various reasons, and it would result in more coalition governments, but it would also make the minor parties accountable. As we can see with the present federal Coalition opposition making promises it doesn't have to even try and keep with money it doesn't have to worry about because it won't be anywhere near power for some time, accountability is a good thing and we might even see some pragmatic politics within the major parties as has been seen in the ACT and in New Zealand in particular. Orderinchaos 16:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Howard events

Hi Timeshift. I made a list of the important events that are currently missing from the Howard article here. Maybe you could look at the list, or add to it, or let me know if you think it is reasonable. Also, the POV tag keeps getting removed. Do you think the article is now balanced? Or is more work needed until we reach a non-POV state? thanks, --Lester 01:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)