User talk:Run to the hills, cos the end of the world is soon!

Welcome
Hello, Run to the hills, cos the end of the world is soon!. Welcome to Wikipedia. I am Addihockey10 a volunteer with the Account Creation Team and I received your account request. You are welcome to leave questions, comments on my talk page at anytime  here . Here is some useful information to get you started. – Addihockey10 (talk)

March 2014
Hello, I'm Dougweller. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Christian mythology without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting name and userpage
Should I flee to Heysen? Timeshift (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are based in Adelaide, I can't imagine running for the hills will make any difference. It will take several years for you to notice that the world has ended even in a worst-case scenario. (I'm sorry I couldn't resist.) I had to specifically ask for this username, apparently there's some default rule prohibiting long ones or something. But they're nice here and let it through. Run to the hills, cos the end of the world is soon! (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't you know? All allied countries will aim their weapons at Adelaide for calibration :P Timeshift (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems pointless: how would they know if they hit? It's already a hole! Run to the hills, cos the end of the world is soon! (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Boom-tish! Timeshift (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said I was original. I once went to uni in a place that had bomb craters in the hills around it. On the other hand, I've never been to Adelaide, so what do I know? Run to the hills, cos the end of the world is soon! (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I must say, your username is getting worse not better for me. So much text and space taken for a username... but each to their own. Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I considered doing this once. But I rarely comment so I never thought about it much. I guess, though, that in the editing screen it just makes it take up even more space. Meh. I haven't paid attention much to comment pages, but when I used to there were people with sigs that had so many links and other things they went on and on for ever. I do have a problem with it though: it's actually really hard to remember what it is. If my browser forgets it, I have to go search through my emails. I probably wouldn't do it again, but I'm not going to rename it. The joke was fun enough, and unique usernames are hard to come up with. Run to the hills! (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Typing it in would be quite annoying. Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If I have to look it up anyway, I can copy and paste! Run to the hills! (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed the humour of this chat. Thanks for that. On a more serious note, your user name probably undermines your credibility somewhat. However, you get credit for originality and spunk!Reallavergne (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Credibility? This is Wikipedia on the Internet! It's as incredible as it gets! :) My name is meant to be a laugh. I'm pleased you got one :) Run to the hills! (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

=Your POV edit on the proportional representation page=

Hi Run to the hills, cos the end of the world is soon!. I saw your edit that was reverted. I also saw your response and agreed with it, but since you did not open a Talk topic on this on the Talk page, I decided to comment here instead. I have enough battles of my own to fight as it is on the PR Talk page!

I was the one who originally introduced something like the phrase that you wanted to remove (although it fit a bit better the way I had it at the time). However, upon reading your explanation I totally agree with you. The source itself (which I agree has to be used somewhat cautiously for POV reasons) does not claim that the evidence proves that there are slightly fewer elections. What it says is that "stable, representative government can go hand in hand." That is all that can safely be said. Even assuming that the data set shows that there were slightly fewer elections in the sample reviewed, that difference may not be statistically significant and so one has to be cautious in using this indicator.

I would encourage you to not just give in on this point, as you are in the right, and there is altogether too much gratuitous reverting happening on this page. Don't let yourself be bullied. You should make your edit (either your original one or a slightly different one), but this time be sure to explain it in a bit more detail on the Talk page (you don't have to be as wordy as I tend to be! ;-). My suggestion would be to revert your deletion but to suggest that the issue of instability needs to be identified and discussed as a frequently-cited potential disadvantage of PR.Reallavergne (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm a little bit confused. My change was reverted, but then I reverted the revert with a more detailed explanation as to why. It looks like my version has been kept since then, so either my explanation was regarded as sufficient (I think it is) or the reverter didn't notice/decided I was obsessed/decided they were over wikipedia and its petty squabbles/whatever other possibilities you can enumerate. So why should I "not give up"? I haven't given up or been bullied.
 * Oh dear. My mistake. I thought I had checked and did not think you had reverted the reversion. It seems I saw a problem where there was none. Sorry for the confusion. You might as well delete this exchange from your Talk page.Reallavergne (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for accepting the legitimacy of concern and explanation, especially since you added the original (I'm well aware of how others' changes can make a person's writing seem wrong—I hold nothing against anyone for this sort of thing). I agree that the article would benefit from a discussion of stability, especially since there's a bit of a reputation for instability.
 * In any case, I'm all in favor of more pr. I think we have benefited from the PR we have here in Australia, and would benefit much more if we had a proper MMP/PR style system like NZ or Germany. (Except with IRV for the single member seats, I watched the NZ election last Saturday and it seemed disturbing how a person could win the seat off such a low approval.) Run to the hills! (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes IRV would make fairly good sense when combined with MMP. By itself, it makes some things worse, as I am sure you are aware for your Australian vantage point. Here in Canada, our Liberal party seems to be flirting with AV (IRV), and it has us who support PR quite nervous.Reallavergne (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Australia history.gif


A tag has been placed on File:Australia history.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Australia history.gif


A tag has been placed on File:Australia history.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

yeah and president trump will probably think tasmania is a another country like the rest of them
Ok current (today) usage in Tasmania might not use the word municipality - but it has been used fairly recently - the other thing is when you make claims like that, you need to back it up with WP:RS where ever possible. Specially as the term has been used in Tasmania for local government - for instance -, , ,,,, and so on. JarrahTree 09:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Municipality" isn't a part of the name of any Tasmanian municipality, but that's different from them not being municipalities. Just like no Victorian municipality has the title municipality (rather: Shire, City, Rural City, Borough) yet they are members of the Municipal Association of Victoria, Tasmanian municipalities either have no style (e.g. Kentish) or are cities (e.g. Launceston City). This is contrast with various places in New South Wales e.g. the Municipality of Kiama or the Municipality of Hunters Hill (note that other places in NSW lack any title—the same as most places in Tasmania; it's not just comparing chalk and cheese).
 * Another analogy: It's certainly correct to say "the website Wikipedia" even though "website" isn't part of the name of Wikipedia. A person is always allowed to conjoin a generic term with a proper noun, but that doesn't incorporate the generic term into the proper noun.
 * I'm not aware that it's ever been a policy in Wikipedia that a person has to provide a reliable source to remove an unsourced, factually inaccurate claim. But I'll go straight to the top: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/lga1993182/sch3.html note that the column "municipal area" lacks the word "municipality" in any of the names, and the column "council name" likewise lacks them. Also see schedule 3B, which establishes that Burnie is a city called Burnie City.
 * Run to the hills! (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Cows in the DDR
On this - Raufutter verzehrende Großvieheinheit = cow - this is informative - interesting...

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufutter_verzehrende_Gro%C3%9Fvieheinheit#Popul%C3%A4re_Rezeption

And it has a sources but I can't check them.
 * Horst Dieter Schlosser: Die deutsche Sprache in der DDR zwischen Stalinismus und Demokratie : historische, politische und kommunikative Bedingungen. 2. Auflage. Verl. Wiss. und Politik, Köln 1999, ISBN 3-8046-8861-6, S. 9 (mit einem aktualisierenden Nachw. vers.).
 * Birgit Wolf: Sprache in der DDR : ein Wörterbuch. de Gruyter, Berlin, New York 2000, ISBN 3-11-016427-2 (Lemma rauhfutterverzehrende Großvieheinheit).
 * Franz Planatscher: Die Dokumentation zur deutschen Gegenwartssprache. In: Der Sprachdienst. Nr. 30. Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache, 1986, ISSN 0038-8459, S. 74.

Is it worth putting back?

Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC))