User talk:Adpete/Archive 2

Australian Championship Information
Doug Hamilton did win the 1966/67 Australian Championship (Brisbane), ahead of Fuller and Woodhams. There was a (prolonged) playoff between Hay and Fuller for the 1972 title which ended tied 5-5. At this point the ACF ruled that the players would share the title. (Source for this information: Australian Chess Championship 1974 - 100 Best Games, Edited by W. MacLean, published by Chess Mates of Australia, October 1974)

On another matter, the CJS Purdy entry contains the apocryphal last words story ("I have a win but it may take some time") without any citation. I was going to add "Cite Needed" but reading your comments on this matter, you may want to take sterner action. I've spoken to a few people who have better knowledge of the incident than me (including Dr Vasil Tulevski who was present) and (a) no one has confirmed he said those words and (b) according to Ian Rogers it was unlikely he would have said that as in the final position he stood worse after being better earlier in the game.

Shaun Press


 * Interesting. I suggest you post that at Talk:Cecil Purdy (where I see you have posted previously). Peter Ballard 13:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thanx for your support on William Schniedewind's page. I'm on a mini crusade to get the academic community to embrace Wikipedia. It's difficult, on BOTH ends. Thanx again. IsraelXKV8R 05:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do believe that academics are not automatically notable, and I've seen WP pages that look like little more than academics' personal pages. Having said that I think I've heard of his book "How the Bible became a book", and it (and he) are fairly prominent on Google, hence my tentative support. The William Schniedewind page will need a fairly heavy rewrite though. No need to simply list his CV and publications - that's what his home page is for. Peter Ballard 05:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for the note.
I too wouold like to see Wiki become a useful tool. As a relatively young academic, I see one of my jobs as trying to convince scholars that new technologies aren't just for fringe theories, but for everyone. The truth is, I SHOULD be writing articles. But I didn't know how strict the requirements were for 'notability.' Anywho...

Thanx for the encouragement. -bc IsraelXKV8R 03:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

B vs. b
I didn't see anything on the MoS page regarding the words "biblical" or "Biblical". I did see 8.111 at the Chicago Manual of Style, plus this which state that they do not capitalizes "biblical". I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, because the talk page discussion which introduced the one line regarding the Bible and the Qur'an mentions it may be an American vs. British English thing (i.e. both uses are acceptable, but editing just to change between the two is not). If I misread the Manual of Style, or if you'd like to explain where you are coming from, please feel free to contact me. -Andrew c [talk] 04:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it's hard to explain everything in a summary line. The MoS says (a) "Bible" should be capitalised, and (b) offers the example of "Republican" (the USA political party, not the general concept) as an adjective to capitalise. From that I inferred that "Biblical" should be capitalised. The Chicago Manual of Style does indeed not capitalise "biblical", but to me that doesn't seem right, it would like not capitalising adjectives like "american" or "republican" (for the USA political party). But I'm not too fussed either. Peter Ballard 04:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * After checking some of my books, I've decided you were right and "biblical" is more common after all. Peter Ballard 12:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for putting all the research into that. It really isn't that big of a deal to me. I personally though "biblical" was correct and through my research found that in certain contexts, both were acceptable. I guess we've both learned something! -Andrew c [talk] 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

1974 fed election/dismissal
Hi peter - I would appreciate your input at the 1974/75 pages to see what should be left in and what should be left out. Bjenks is making some large changes. Timeshift 08:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with your revert at Australian federal election, 1974 because it shows what happened to the 1974 Senate numbers. I'm not so sure about Australian federal election, 1975. Since there is already detail at 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, I wouldn't really object if the text at Australian federal election, 1975 was kept pretty short, so perhaps some trimming there is in order. I'll weigh into the relevant talk pages if the dispute continues. Peter Ballard 08:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Peter B. That's good thinking, but why not go a step further and agree that the 1975 material (on the 1974 election page) is best discussed in a 1975-relevant article. (My intention is/was to move it there as part of a re-ordering.) The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis article needs to have such excellent detail in it--but only once. It's surely not helpful to have variations on the dismissal facts and opinions spread around half-a-dozen related articles--especially if some of them contradict others and are poorly sourced. Suely we can all work together on this. There was some earlier discussion at John_Kerr. Cheers --Bjenks 13:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm a big fan of consolidating articles, and putting material in one place only. By and large I agree with what you want to do. I've argued previously that if a person doesn't know how to click a link to look further, they probably shouldn't be using Wikipedia. Certainly there is (or at least was) too much of John Kerr which needlessly duplicated 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. But in the case of Australian federal election, 1974, it's a pretty succinct single paragraph, and is an important "further development" on the 1974 election results, so I think it's worth keeping. Peter Ballard 00:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * O.K., I support your move. Your "Subsequent changes" section overcomes the relevance difficulty and will be a very helpful explanation for readers who may turn to the 1974 election page for more explanations about the Dismissal. However, the most important thing is still to restructure and sharpen up the messy 1975 Australian constitutional crisis page. Cheers -- Bjenks 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Balance of power
No offence TS and BJ, but dozens of countries use PR, there's nothing unique here
 * No probs with me, PB. The over-use and misapplication of the term by Oz media and others is a constant source of annoyance. I'd rather see less of it than have to keep reminding folk of the realities vs the exploited myth. So, well done again! Cheers --Bjenks 09:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

SA 06 FFP
Just another of the weird WP edits that seem to disappear in to randomness - i corrected it almost immediately after to say it was evans at the time and hood now, but you've fixed it. All good. Timeshift 08:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw it and fixed it, then afterwards looked at the history and realised you'd only done the edit a couple of minutes before. If I'd known that, I probably would have left it to you to fix. I jumped in too quick! Peter Ballard 11:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike Rann
Peter,

I have not blamed Mike Rann for the State Bank Disaster, I made a point that he was a senior member of Cabinet and the relevance is that he is now premier and we have another financial disaster bearing down on South Australia. (This comment was by User:Dontcallmebruce).


 * Gotta love these POV edits... Timeshift 03:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Rann was a senior cabinet member, though I'm willing to concede that point. What made the edit POV, in my opinion, was the way it laboured the point (no pun intended). "Rann was a (senior?) cabinet member at the time of the State Bank of South Australia collapse" is OK. "Rann was a (senior?) cabinet member at the time of the State Bank of South Australia collapse which cost South Australian taxpayers $3 billion dollars yada yada yada" has a POV slant to it, IMHO. Peter Ballard 03:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

At the end of it all, the state bank wind up actually left the state with money and all the debt gone. It was in the Red for along time tho, at time of sale it was all paid off.--203.87.127.18 07:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

KJV
Hi, You are odviously a keen christian, so maybe u could answer somthing for me, the "thou shall not suffer a sodomite to live" do you believe thats the right term as in that it means a homo? Also for some reason no christian has said why they dont follow this command of god, im curious as to why people claim a religion, but then do things such as trying to avoid going heaven. It just doenst make sence to me, the short time on earth is irrelivant to the eternity in heaven, but they cling to life so hard and are sad when people die, they should be happy. Also praying to god for him to cure cancer etc, surely if god cared either way he would get involved, he doesnt need advice from people, knowing everything (Can he see the future tho?)

Thanks


 * I'm not sure what your first question is ("sodomite" is not the word I'd use, but I suspect you meant to ask me something else). As for the second: well we're here to enjoy life too. We're sad when people die because we miss them. Even if we will see them, it won't be for a long time. As for praying: God tells us to talk to him and pray. It's true he doesn't need our advice but I think God likes us to talk to him, and it benefits us too. Peter Ballard 11:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

POV
I gather anything that could be perceived as a negative statement about Mike Rann will be deemed POV and crushed! (from User:Dontcallmebruce)


 * I think, for you, the #1 thing I'd suggest is to try to write in a neutral tone. You've raised some good points, but the tone of your language has been so anti-Rann that they've been reverted on the spot. Peter Ballard 12:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike Rann
I am a total NOOB when it comes to Wikipedia and am unable to find the original contribution I made.

Any help would be appreciated.

Just a quick one
Would you please, if you know how, advise me on how to move my userboxes up on User:Timeshift9 as right now the text is keeping the boxes horizontally below the text. Thanks. Timeshift 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my experience is limited there. If you remove all the table info, you can get the userboxes BELOW the text, if that is what you want. Peter Ballard 00:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject chess
Hi, I have noticed you have done tremendous work on chess related articles. Well done! I saw your name is not listed on the participant list on WikiProject Chess, could I invite you to join? Recently we set up a page WikiProject_Chess/Review discussing the upgrade of chess articles to A-status. Here we could really use extra manpower. In any case keep up the good work! Voorlandt 10:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

PMs
When you say "mostly", are there any that you do think need work or have issues but don't want to say anything? Timeshift 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I wasn't thinking of anything in particular, I'm just aware the earlier PM articles aren't perfect. I've got my minor quibbles with the ones I know something about (i.e. Fraser onwards), but they're no big deal. Peter Ballard 02:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Costello and Keating
Thanks for agreeing, otherwise we'd end up listing everyone who's criticised Howard's economic record on Keatings page eg State Premiers, Rudd etc. Michellecrisp 06:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Total utter rubbish Michelle. Political opposites criticise each other all the time. Very rare do they criticise each other when they're on the same side of the fence. Timeshift 06:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't explain why Costello's comments belong in the Keating article. In the Costello and Howard articles (if you can get them past Skyring and Prester John) - sure. But not the Keating article. Peter Ballard 07:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Timeshift you're missing the point, if Costello is criticising Howard why is it in a third party article ie Keating? Michellecrisp 07:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Peter, I believe timeshift has failed to gain consensus on this. this warrants further discussion before agreeing or not agreeing to include this. Michellecrisp 07:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do whatever the hell you want. I can't be bothered with utter bullshit today. Timeshift 07:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion has been copied to Talk:Paul Keating. Follow-ups there please. Peter Ballard 07:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hawke Race Motion
Did you read up about Bob Hawke's motion about race? I think most accounts of Howard's 1988 Asian comments also include reference to the Bob Hawke motion that happened soon afterwards.

I think it's relevant, as it was like a show of hands to see where each MP stood on the issue. Even more striking was the dissenting MPs who crossed the floor, an event that is not common. The reports state that those dissenting MPs risked their careers, which they obviously did, as some (like Steele Hall) seemed to just disappear after that event.

The general dissent over the issue is credited with causing the collapse of Howard's leadership in the 1980s. If the dissenters were to blame for that, it's no wonder that Howard didn't tolerate much dissent afterwards. Those so-called Liberal "wets" were expunged from the party (with the exception of Ruddock, who dissented but was probably not a "wet").

These events are historic and worth a mention. I feel that the John Howard article should at least mention the motion, the dissent, and probably the expunging of "wets". OK, we could leave out the dissenting parliamentary quote from Steele Hall if that helps achieve a compromise or consensus.

I feel that these events shaped Howard's Prime Ministership today. In fact, he may not even be PM today if the Asian remarks & dissent did not happen in 1988, as he may have become PM back then, and be out of office now!

I'm guessing that you do actually find these events interesting yourself, as you've been reading up on the subject. Cheers, Lester2 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you understand WP:OR and why it applies to the above and hence why other editors are cautious around possibly POV edits made by you?  Shot info  22:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this belong at Talk:John Howard? Anyway my position has, I think, been consistent: the importance of anything (and the Hawke motion in particular) needs to be demonstrated by secondary sources - i.e. commentary on the events by reputable sources. I initially thought the Hawke motion was unimportant, but once you produced a secondary source (Paul Kelly's book), I changed my mind. I thought the Kelly reference pretty well closed the debate, so I'm surprised it hasn't gone into the article yet. If you want to raise a new issue (expunging of the wets, though I think the only one expunged was McPhee; Hall was never a significant Federal Liberal MP either before or after 1988), then the talk page is a better place to raise it. Peter Ballard 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Peter, I was just chit-chatting, but I'll take it too the discussion page. Cheers, Lester2 11:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Handicap
Handicap is not an analogy, it's the definition of the word in a sporting context. See definition 8. Also, your altered section title capitalization doesn't follow the Manual_of_Style_(headings), so I fixed it. (The MOS rules are weird, but they are the rules and they're usually easy to follow. Quale 16:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Just noticed that several old section titles on that page don't follow WP:MOS, so I'll fix those too. Quale 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I didn't realize that you were the one with the concerns over the inclusion of the Krabbé material in World Chess Championship 1963. I think the section on the collusion allegations is pretty good (I didn't write any of it—I hope that's not the reason why it's good) but can be made even better, but I also have concerns about Krabbé's comments. I remember that disagreement when it happened but didn't investigate it in detail at the time. I looked at it, and the reference is basically a blog. Although I consider Krabbé in general to be a WP:RS, a blog reference might not be. Also, I think Krabbé misunderstands or mischaracterizes the claim. His argument only makes sense if refuting the claim that the collusion was to ensure that Petrosian won. I've never seen that claim. The claim that Petrosian, Geller, and Keres agreed to draw all their games can't be refuted with an example that Petrosian agreed to a draw in a game with Keres in which he had a winning advantage. Basically I don't understand Krabbé's argument, since the example he picked indicates the opposite of what he claims. Quale 16:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On the heading title: I think it's only used in some contexts or cultures - certainly here in Australia, I never hear it except for horse racing (and I follow a lot of sport).


 * I'm glad you support me on Krabbe's comments, but I got tired of arguing the point. I agree Krabbe is a fairly Reliable Source, but on this one I think he's wrong. I might take that one up in the Talk page. Peter Ballard 03:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After I decided that it might be a good idea to create a new section, I thought about the title for a few seconds. I considered exactly the title you prefer before choosing a more obscure wording, so maybe I should have thought about it a little longer.  I agree that English usage should strive to be as neutral as practical across U.S.-UK-Australia and the like.  Along those lines another reason that the title you chose might be better is that not everyone who reads the English Wikipedia is a native English speaker, and "jargonish" usages should probably be avoided when possible.  "Handicapping" in the way that I used it probably qualifies.  About the Krabbe question, I plan to do a little more work on World Chess Championship 1963, so I'll bring it up on the talk page if you don't get to it first.  I think we need to describe both sides of the collusion controversy, but I don't think Krabbe's arguments against collusion are the strongest that have been offered.  (Others have pointed out that with 5 of 8 players being Soviets it was hardly necessary for them to engage in much collusion--sheer weight of numbers made it almost certain that a Soviet would win, especially since Benko and Filip had no practical chance to win and at age 20 Fischer wasn't yet at the height of his powers.)  The usually active WP:CHESS people seem to be less active the past few days, so we might not get much input (WT:CHESS has been fairly dead lately, for instance).  In the U.S. this weekend is our last major summer holiday (Labor Day weekend), so a lot of people are traveling or enjoying themselves out of doors.  If we just end up talking to each other I might specifically invite other people actively editing chess articles to weigh in, because I think this is an important point to get right.  Quale 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Whitlam video
I was a bit hesitant too as it wasn't really so much official as it was satirical, but I just could not resist posting it as it was a video of Whitlam at the dismissal and AFAIK the only one available/accessable on the net for free. It's interesting how much youtube has to offer - i've added video links for whitlam, hawke, and keating. Timeshift 13:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
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.

Request help: John Howard / Bob Hawke motion
Hi Peter. I'm about to add the Bob Hawke Motion information to the John Howard article (1988). I'm using conservative commentator Paul Kelly's book as a base. I am writing it in a way that I don't think would be regarded as an "attack piece".

Anyway, I've got WikiLinks for those who crossed the floor. Those who abstained are proving more difficult to identify. Here's the text as it stands:
 * Four members of the Liberal Party crossed the floor of parliament to vote with Labor: Hon Dr Peter Baume (Senator), Steele Hall, Ian Macphee and Philip Ruddock. Two others, Wilson and MacKellar abstained from the vote.

Wilson & MacKellar? I'll add the text to the article shortly. If you happen to pass the John Howard article, maybe you could fill in the full names for Wilson & MacKellar. I figured you'd have a good knowledge of those in the parliament. Thanks, Lester2 02:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a note: User:Sarah kindly added the Wikilinks to the article, so it's done now. Thanks, anyway. -- Lester  05:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Bolt
Hi Peter - is the URL i'm referring to the correct one? Cheers, Timeshift 09:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it don't think it matters. It was my own observation (that the Rudd article needs work), and the fact that Bolt said something similar was just a throwaway line for a little dry humour. Peter Ballard 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Xenophon
I think all the minor parties can kiss their SA chances goodbye at the election now. Timeshift 09:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. At the State election, FF and Greens still polled quite well. If there's a result like that, then it could be Labor 2, Libs 2, Xenophon 1, and the last seat is anyone's. In any case it'll be interesting. I was totally not expecting this because Xenophon's still got more than 6 years to serve. Peter Ballard 12:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO it will be 3 ALP 2 Lib 1 Xen, but with preference flows these days who knows if it becomes 2 ALP 2 Lib 1 Xen 1 x. I wasn't expecting this either. I agree that Xenophon should pick his replacement on principle (stay tuned for that one!) but now it means 2 out of 22 upper house members were voted in on Xenophon's vote - representative in theory, but a bit unrepresentative in practice if you ask me. Timeshift 11:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm a big Xenophon fan but I don't like the way that he's walking out 2 years into an 8 year term. As you know I didn't have much sympathy with people being too lazy to vote below the line then complaining they voted for Xenophon but got Bressington; but to get someone else because Xenophon is leaving doesn't seem right. I think he should have waited till his 8 year term was nearly up - it's not like he's that old. Having said that, to me he's preferable to almost anyone else on offer and I hope my party preferences him highly. Peter Ballard 12:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Stateline transcripts are up - added to article refs. I agree with what you say, but on the other hand maybe he was right in that there was nothing much left for him to achieve in his general areas of interest - I think he's got a pretty good platform going in to this election, more than he could find at others, esp WorkChoices. Timeshift 10:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bressington's actions surprised me even more than Xenophon's resignation! She owes everything she has in parliament to Xenophon. Incredible. Timeshift (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If I was in her position (hard to imagine I know) I'd keep my thoughts to myself out of respect for all he'd done to get me into parliament. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Poll @ http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22796625-5014077,00.html - the results may (or may not) surprise you. Timeshift (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder if there's any significance in her timing - during the joint sitting and the appointment of Darley. Xenophon virtually guaranteed Bressington she wouldnt get in and AFAIK she did it to return a favour. Now she's stuck in the red death chamber until 2014, and without the guy who was keeping her afloat in there - Xenophon. Timeshift (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * She can always resign if she doesn't like it. Who gets in then? I guess it's the person who was 4th on Xenophon's voting ticket. Who was that you might ask? I'll let you look up http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/archive/2006/candidates/pdfs/H.pdf yourself for a good laugh. How do you think Rann would like having to do that!! Peter Ballard (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Darley was third of three. Interesting history-setting stuff if Bressington goes. But it seems history is being made everywhere at the moment :P Timeshift (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but did you look at who Nick made his 4th preference on the voting ticket? I think it's hilarious. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Third of three means there's no fourth. Labor will do what they previously suggested - the next on the preference quota. Which AFAIK is a 5th Labor MP. Yes, I wonder what Rann will do :P Timeshift (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No there IS a 4th, because Xenophon had to number his preferences all the way from 1 to 53. If you take out Xenophon + Bressington and re-run the preference allocation (which IMHO is the only fair way to do it, because anything else would ignore the votes of the 20% of the people who voted for Xenophon), then you get the people who were 3rd and 4th on the Xenophon ticket. 3rd of course is John Darley. 4th, like I said, it both interesting and funny. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL @ Xen's 4th pref! As for the 20%, i'd say they got more than they voted for - they got all three! Whoever would be picked next is hardly ignoring the 20% who voted independent Nick Xenophon - No Pokies. Timeshift (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Internal consistency of the Bible
Thanks for your intervention at Talk:Internal consistency of the Bible. You're clearly right, and that will help me to improve the article when I get time. Best, - Fayenatic (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Frontline
Hi, thanks for your comments on my edits on the Frontline episode pages - I guess my reasoning for removing 'spoilers' was not so much on the grounds of saving the suspense but more because a) it seems in line with most episode lists on here, that they give a brief synopsis rather than a paragraph or two of plot runthrough and b) a lot of the plot summaries on the pages are very clumsily written, and in editing them, it just seemed more reasonable to tighten it up. But thanks for the comments: I'm not personally attached to the pages, I just figured they should be better written than they were! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.236.178 (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Senate
I'm just thinking about the 2007 election page... "Whatever the outcome, it is widely predicted" seems to be too... not sure if this is the right description, but presumptuous? Thoughts? Timeshift 18:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. Factually, I think it's an accurate description of what commentators are predicting. If you think the tone isn't right, then by all means rewrite it. p.s. I decided to remove of mention specific minor parties in the lead because I thought it was getting too wordy. Peter Ballard 23:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Any idea what Brian M Paterson and A Brook stand for in group b (see ticket)? (A Brook? We don't give our name when nominating to be a Senator now?) Timeshift (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Eventually I plugged the right things into Google and found them - Secular Party of Australia: http://www.secular.org.au/elec07SA.php Peter Ballard (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Xenophon and Family First having the balance in the upper house - history loves repeating itself, doesn't it? I'm surprised the media are still playing so cautiously about who will hold the balance of power. I don't see any change in senate predictions happening any time soon. Timeshift (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oooh!
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/results/senate/sa.htm - 2 ALP, 2 Lib, 1 xen, 1 green! Timeshift (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just beat you to it! See Nick Xenophon. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I must say i'm very happy with the outcome. I went 1st green 1st xen 2nd green 3rd green 2nd labor 3rd labor. Can't stand Don. Timeshift (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out my userpage. I predicted 53 percent! :D Timeshift (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. Very close between Labor + Greens for that last Senate seat. As you might have guessed I went FF then Nick. Half happy I guess. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you tell that? Bottom of http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/results/senate/sa.htm says it's against Liberal unless i'm reading it wrong. Timeshift (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Liberal (and FF) have no chance, because Labor + Greens have 3 quotas between them, and are preference swapping, so must get 3 seats between them. The question is who gets knocked out last. Currently Greens are ahead (more ahead than I thought when I wrote my last message), but Labor still have a chance. 3rd Liberal has zero chance. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My seat Sturt - so close yet so far! Pyne by .5 percent with 76.5 percent counted. Timeshift (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Hanson-Young
Hello Peter. See the Sydney Morning Herald and ABC regarding Sarah Hanson-Young. Thanks,  Lester  23:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My recollection is the 6th Senate seat can be volatile as the count progresses. The ABC page has a disclaimer that its prediction is provisional only. On that basis I changed it to a prediction (as I did for Nick Xenophon, who is far more certain than Sarah). But seeing as the SMH has already called it ("Scott Ludlum in Western Australia and human rights activist Sarah Hanson-Young in South Australia both secured seats"), WP can call it as well, though personally I'd prefer it left as a prediction until the final declaration of results. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why we have the tag at the top saying that content changes as events progress and unfold. It can be updated, should Sarah not be elected. Timeshift (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I still personally prefer "predicted" as more accurate. But since there's a WP:RS saying she's in, I won't object. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What we should remember though is that unlike last election, Labor preferenced the Greens. Apart from them and the coalition, all other parties were insignificant in their vote. Timeshift (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Krudd
I closed the AfD for Krudd, you may now take it to WP:RFD instead. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
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.

Pascal's wager
I thought your website was interesting. One particular thing you wrote, "Atheism, on the other hand, promises nothing after death. So if you are to reject Christianity, you had better be sure that you are right. So just remember... ...What if you are wrong? "

I'm not an atheist but I will respond by summarizing a quote (I can't find) from Galileo: "I'm not of the opinion tht God gave us intelligence by accident". This quote applies to your "What If I'm wrong" statement because you're more likely to be right the more you know. Isn't it gross and disgusting how many people you see on a daily basis who are not intelligent or smart in any way, shape or form, but have this sort of "willful ignorance" - as if it's better not to know than to know. These people live their lives fully happy that they don't understand how things work, because they think they're going to be rewarded in an afterlife.

Peter, your supposition also is based on the notion that all biological life is here for the purpose of humans beings to behave morally. Moral behavior is triggered by unconcious stimuli and relayed to aspects of the frontal lobes. It is emotions which drive our moral judgments (called moral revolt) above all else. We know from studies with chimps that they have moral behavior - girl chimps will drown themselves in order to save others, chimps will also refuse to shock another chimp even if offered a huge reward. What does this say about Christianty? Do chimps have souls too? Or is there moral behavior an accident?


 * I'd say animals reflect some aspects of human behaviour - many people can remember a loyal pet for example - but that's a long way from the moral choices we make.

Also Peter, it is impossible for humans to live by the rules set forth by the bible, specifically the passage pertaining to the law of "not killing". Maltus' theory of population growth states that all biological life would run rampant if there was no restriction to ts means of production. In regards to humans, if we did not fight and kill each other or there was no other limit of our means of reproduction, within 600 years there would be 4 humans to every square foot. The law "not to kill" is impossible.


 * Of course not. There is such thing as contraception.

Peter there are also people who have had strokes (loss of blood to the brain) where certain regions have been injured. There are individuals whose strokes have affected regions associated with moral judgments. These people, when given moral scenarios, are more likely to sacrifice on human being for 5 others. One instance is they will throw 1 person in front of a train to save 4 others. 80% of people would never do this, yet the reasoning these brain damaged people offer is impeccable: "I'm saving four human lives for the sake of one. What I'm doing is the best thing. There is no good evidence that killing is always wrong, I'm doing more good than bad. Your just basing your moral beliefs on an emotion that isn't true and makes no sense!". You also have to realize that if the purpose of the Universe is for humans to be moral, these people are disposed to immoral behaviors when it is not their fault.


 * While being moral is part of what we're here for, it's not the only reason we're here. As for those examples... people's minds and judgement can be affected by mental illness, so I don't see why they can't be by an accident/stroke either. (Having said that, rational people have made a similar decision in similar circumstances anyway, e.g. bombing Hiroshima).

I could write pages upon pages on topics like this. It's really quite fascinating to learn how we actually are... you can still have your cake and read all sorts of book and eat your christian cake too... the problem is it just raises more doubts in your mind as to the accuracy and arrogance over the belief that "the purpose of the universe is for human beings to be moral".

Cheers Biblical1 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, we're here for more than just to "be moral"; though obviously being "moral" is part of what it means to follow God. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hawke
Why do you consider the record dubious? Timeshift (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd read that there was historical doubt that it was a WR. In any case, the real point is that it's absurd to call Bob Hawke a celebrity politician. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the second point, agreed, but just curious as to why you might have thought that he did not set a world record at the time... Timeshift (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I just thought I read it somewhere :) . I needn't have said it - whether or not the WR was real, Hawke was not a celebrity politician. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He wasn't a celebrity politician in the way WP means it, however I doubt anyone else could have convinced an Australian public to vote them in as PM in less than a month :P Timeshift (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

TV coverage
Agreed - seems a reasonable conclusion. The tone of it wasn't entirely encyclopaedic anyway, it sounded a bit breathless :P Orderinchaos 14:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is merit in keeping viewer numbers and which politicians went where for historical purposes. I have cut down the entire section and merged it in to week 6. Timeshift (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Namesake
Have you seen this? :P Orderinchaos 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL! Neither me nor a relative. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wilson vandalism
At least they took some time off over Christmas. Let's see over the next day or so, else I'll protect again.... --Stephen 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

James the less
Greetings. I left some discussion for you at James, son of Alphaeus. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"dubious" at computer chess
Moving discussion to Talk:Computer chess so others can contribute Peter Ballard (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3
Hi Peter - we're planning a third meetup in Adelaide sometime in the coming weeks, and would love to have you there. If you can, please help decide a location, a date and a time here. Thanks!

Request for Mediation: Howard family copra interests
A new Request for Mediation has been initiated for the John Howard article regarding the Howard family interests in Copra plantations in New Guinea. Initially, a small number of editors were listed as 'interested parties'. However, the Committee Chair has indicated that a wider group may now be invited to participate. An invitation will now be sent to everyone who has previously commented on the John Howard talk page regarding this subject. If you would like to participate, please place your name at: Requests for mediation/John Howard. There is also a discussion page regarding this RfM. Regards,  Lester  21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3
Hi Peter Ballard - after some planning we've decided to hold the third Adelaide Wikimeetup on Sunday, 17th February, 2008. The meeting will be held at Billy Baxter's in Rundle Mall at 11:30AM. Further details and directions are available on the meetup page. Please RSVP here by 20:00UTC on 15th February 2008 (that's 6AM Saturday for our time zone) so that we can inform the restaurant about numbers. Hope to see you there!

You are receiving this message because you are in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia or are listed at WP:ADEL. If this has been sent in error, please accept our apologies!

On behalf of Riana ⁂, 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

HELP
If there is a liberal party user please come to Nicola Roxon. We need an unbiased opinion as the labour members are constantly reverting her Jewish religion. They are stacking the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGazza (talk • contribs) 11:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

cited information on 1 Peter
Peter, you altered cited information without providing any contrary citations. Cited information is what WP depends on to be reliable. If Harris is wrong, find a reliable source that says so. You might think Harris is wrong, but WP isn't about what you and I think, it's about what the experts conclude. Leadwind (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did the revert rather quickly. When I edited a few weeks ago, I checked the external links and one commentary at home, but I should have added the refs (my bad). Another user has now added the refs, and I think there's a reasonable balance now. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Irina Levitina
Your question has been answered at Irina Levitina. Bubba73 (talk), 04:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it didn't register outside the US, it seems. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the partnership thing is the biggest source of income. I've heard of professionals getting about US$200/day to play with an amateur.  There are bridge tournaments going on all of the time in the US - a lot more than chess.  There are dozens of three-day weekend tournaments each weekend plus several week-long tournaments going on at any particular time.  Bridge players are mostly a lot richer than chess players, and they can afford to pay pros.  You can greatly improve your chances of winning by hiring a pro.  There are other ways to make money in bridge too.  ACBL sanctioned clubs go on all of the time, and it costs $3 to $6 to play.  They have to have a director and they get paid.  There are some bridge clubs run to make a profit - a lot more than chess clubs.  I've made a grand total of $55 playing chess - before expenses!  I've made a lot more than that when I was a small-time bridge club director.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was palying in a national bridge tournament in 1995, I think, and she was playing at a table next to me. I thought I recognized her from chess, and I checked the name to be sure. A few days away we were near each other at dinner, and I thought about asking her if she still played chess. But I didn't.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis
re: "A minority of left-wing commentators believe the United States was involved.."

1. If you are using a numerical description such as 'minority', you should back this up numerically. I suspect you are relying on footnote number 1 to back this up. Footnote 1 is now 404.

2. Commentators who believe the US was involved in the dismissal are (self-evidently) not necessarily left-wing. For instance, Christopher Boyce believed this, and he is not left-wing.

I suggest something like - "A number of commentators believe the United States was involved...". This way, we're not making an unsubstantiated claim about their minority / majority status, and we're not limiting that opinion to the left end of the spectrum.

On that note, your use of the term "left wing" through the piece is iffy. You probably mean 'social democrat'.

3. I think my piece about Whitlam's search for petro-dollar funding is relevant to the crisis. If you like I can provide citations for Whitlam's own suspicion that seeking funding through non-western financial sources aroused hositility in financial establishment circles.

4. "..None of these factors were felt to have been influenced by a foreign power.". Your use of the passive voice here is misleading. You need to state who felt this way (other than yourself). I suggest this be deleted.

cheers, CryRedMao —Preceding unsigned comment added by CryRedMao (talk • contribs) 09:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has got to say that a minority believe it, because that is the case. I don't care whether it says left wing or not, I did not originally insert it. As for point 4 - oh please, does anyone seriously think the US influenced Whitlam, Fraser or the electorate? Peter Ballard (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Impasse?
Cheers. Clicked on your homepage after seeing your name in the Bobby Fischer discussion. You state that "Wikipedia is cited too much, making circular references" but you also state that "External Links are mostly bad". Doesn't this lead to some sort of impasse? If we should not be using too many sources from inside Wikipedia and not too many sources from outside Wikipedia, where should we be getting our sources from, then? (Hope you don't say "the Bible" ;-) -The Gnome (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand me. WP:References are good, but WP:External Links are mostly bad. References are put in to provide a citation for a piece of information in the article. External links are frequently dumped at the end of the article, too often with no explanation. I believe anyone putting in an external link should also put in an explanation of why it is justified. So there is no impasse: references - not external links - provide the links to outside Wikipedia. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clear now. And I agree with you about the (often) unnecessary, (sometimes) inane "dumping" of external links. Having to justify the inclusion of external links is not a bad idea. -The Gnome (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi there. I was unaware that there was another individual named John Purdy. Thank you for moving the cricketer's page. Bobo. 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of deletion debate for Instant-runoff voting controversies
You have either participated in a previous deletion debate over this article, or edited the article or its Talk page. If you are interested in contributing to the current debate, please visit Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination). Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Beazley Rove gaffe
Just to notify you that I added Beazley's "Rove" gaffe to his article, as you requested. Regards,  Lester  10:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, saw that. Thanks. I think it's important because it was (IIRC) the final catalyst for the leadership spill. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm new to this whole Wikipedia thing, but, I'm not going to lie, it's pretty cool to meet a fellow Christian. And from Australia too. That's pretty groovy. I hope I don't creep you out with this comment. Hmichele (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

2/3 majority on Malcolm Fraser's talk page
"no party had enjoyed two-thirds control at a joint sitting since the end of World War II" technically this is correct as Howard then clarifies it with "Chifley Labor government would have had 69 per cent of the members and senators present at a potential joint sitting". Timeshift (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well there has been only been one joint sitting since Federation. Maybe Keating forgot to say "potential", maybe Howard did, but I think everyone knew what they meant. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Only one joint sitting with the intent of enacting legislation, yes. The only one, no. Timeshift (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I guess Howard should have called Keating's comments "misleading" rather than "inaccurate" then. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Though possibly unintentionally misleading. Of course Howard was also being a little misleading himself, because the Senate was elected differently in 1946. Having said that Keating had called the Senate "unrepresentative swill" and threatened to do change the way the Senate was elected, because the Senate election method is not enshrined in the constitution. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's just call it politics :) Timeshift (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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 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  01:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter. The content disputes at the JH article have, as you know, got out of hand. My reasoning is that a round-table discussion by those involved would be appropriate, to enable people with widely different views to discuss the situation. A mediator would put a lid on incivility, and keep the discussion focused. Isn't that what we need? The discussion on the article talk page is like the Wild West. Most people have stated on the list whether they Agree / Disagree to a mediated discussion. I'm not sure where you stand. There's no guarantee that a mediated discussion would work. I figured that it's worth a try, to solve the issue by discussion. Regards,  Lester  20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite, but I tend to bow out when disputed get out of hand, especially ones I don't really care about, to the point that I've never bothered reading the mediation rules. So if I don't get round to even saying whether I accept mediation, that's why. FWIW, I think the Obama comments belong in, but need to be presented in a more neutral way. The original text read like a slam dunk victory to Obama. Also I'd very much like the edit warring to stop, and I've no idea whether mediation will fix that. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would not oppose rewording of the Obama text. A mediated round-table discussion would have been good for that. Alas, a couple of people have said "disagree" to mediated discussion, so I think the Mediation Committee will most likely close that page at any moment, though there's probably time to list Agree or Disagree to let it be known what you would have done. Everyone has differing views on the content, but at least mediation would have kept the discussion in order. Now that the attempt at mediation is looking like it's going to fail (for the 3rd time), it moves everything a step closer to more punitive measures. Thanks anyway,  Lester  03:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Australian federal electoral division of Menzies
Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking it was the same as the Shire of Menzies that was edited out earlier from the same section of the article. In that case, the Shire, in WA, takes it's name from the town of Menzies, which dates back to 1895, and was named after Mr Leslie Robert Menzies. I guess I jumped the gun. Thanks for keeping me honest!! --CubBC (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problems. An honest mistake. We all make them! Peter Ballard (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic heading names
I was interested in the "Keep heading names encyclopedic" section of your user page. A classic example is Boris Spassky, which is just terrible. Is "Grandmastership" even a word? This article needs a lot of work (no inline citations, POV, OR etc) but I think a good place to start would be the headings. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Regards, --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard and immigration stalemate
Sorry - I don't think you and I are getting anywhere on this - I hear you and disagree, I can see you hear me (or read me) ... Perhaps to engage others in the debate we need to restart the thread - summarise the views put forward and seek views. I don't want to be tedious but do you think this will help? --Matilda talk 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's fine. I don't like long discussions either. Perhaps summarising Howard's achievements in the lead is just too hard to do without getting consensus, and we should drop the whole thing and just leave it to the article itself where it can all be spelt out. Anyway, I've no objection to your suggestion. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done :-) - looks like support from both sides of the opinion. I prefer indigenous australians to aboriginals but that is nitpicking ... Regards --Matilda talk 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not nitpicking, Matilda. I would also prefer the term "Indigenous Australians" rather than Aboriginal. Regards, -- Lester  07:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

PJ
Just out of interest, alerting you to this. -- Lester  04:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. It did not cross my mind that User:Prester John and User:C.Marsh b.Lillee might be the same person, but CMBL's main work seems to have been on Immigration history of Australia, which isn't on my watchlist. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Anand, 2000
Sorry, Peter, I just misread that. Conscious (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I had a very strong suspicion that the list was being developed to be basically a self promote for the name that predominates in the list - but would rather someone else looked at it - as I had already put an item there and got no response - intriguingly no one seems to be going to the oz noticeboard to comment - it has zilch historical, regional or even for that matter contextual basis - but interesting maybe - if the title and the main item in the list werent so obvious I would consider it to be almost a hoax article - but hey the oz project doesnt have them does it :) SatuSuro 02:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC) But I have no intention of repeating this on the item talk page or the national noticeboard - I will leave it to the intelligence of other readers to confirm or refute the suspicion - if it is worth considering SatuSuro 02:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'd rather suspect unintentional bias (i.e. unawareness of large churches outside Protestant ones) rather than deliberate self-promotion. But even given that, there are major verifiability problems, as you mention. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK maybe unintentional - but the ahistoricality (it would need updating so regularly as to prove its lack of viability as a list anyway) and lack of awareness of other demoninations and perspectives makes it a very POV title and general intent in my mind - and the very specific aim of numbers suggests an extraordinarily naive perspective of the demographics and dynamics of religious observance in modern australia - regardless of religion. Ok enough Ill leave it that SatuSuro 03:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mike Rann
Your comments would be appreciated, IPs, newbies, and now a POV tag? Timeshift (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments summarised - I don't mind the edits you've made. But we both know not to feed the socks, please don't encourage them. Timeshift (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I understand. But I think the concerns are partly valid. I'd like a little more balance in the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)